Do you want to discuss boring politics? (25 Viewers)

[chiefdave]

To Catch A Predator never ceased to amaze me.

Never seen it but I can imagine. I think part of the issue may well be that nobody wants to admit to scale of the problem, and its a problem across all demographics. I live by a school and when I'm driving to work there's no end of middle aged guys quite blatantly staring at the kids walking to school. To the point they are all over the fucking road.

Speaking to a friend who works in the legal profession in the area of child protection they say part of the issue is the number of parents who don't think there's a problem. Parents of older boys see no problem with them dating younger girls, parents of teen girls think their daughter(s) are the exception and aren't sexually active, sending content etc.

Maybe that's part of the reason we struggle to have an open conversation about some of the things involved. Parents prefer the head in the sand approach and assume their kids are fine.

 

---

[shmmeee]

Never seen it but I can imagine. I think part of the issue may well be that nobody wants to admit to scale of the problem, and its a problem across all demographics. I live by a school and when I'm driving to work there's no end of middle aged guys quite blatantly staring at the kids walking to school. To the point they are all over the fucking road.

Speaking to a friend who works in the legal profession in the area of child protection they say part of the issue is the number of parents who don't think there's a problem. Parents of older boys see no problem with them dating younger girls, parents of teen girls think their daughter(s) are the exception and aren't sexually active, sending content etc.

Maybe that's part of the reason we struggle to have an open conversation about some of the things involved. Parents prefer the head in the sand approach and assume their kids are fine.

On LoveHoney:


In the “fantasy and roleplay” section.

why a plaid skirt and white shirt combo LoveHoney? What’s the fantasy here exactly??

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

It really should be 18 with exemptions for both partners being similar ages. Everyone know someone who has dated 16/17 year olds in their mid to late twenties I think and behind their back it’s always “that’s fucken creepy”, yet we let it carry on.

It is creepy, but it’s legal. It would still be legal if we implemented age gap limits as some countries do of 10 years. Besides, what would actually change?

You seem more animated by this than the original topic which strikes me as odd.

 

[shmmeee]

It is creepy, but it’s legal. It would still be legal if we implemented age gap limits as some countries do of 10 years. Besides, what would actually change?

You seem more animated by this than the original topic which strikes me as odd.

This is the original topic. I read (some of) the report last night and I can’t get over why this isn’t a simple law change. I know it’s not as fun as kick out all brown people, but actually doable and would have stopped most of this.

Why are you so keen to keep allowing fully grown men to fuck kids?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Many years ago I worked on a project for Relate and part of that involved setting up remote systems for kids to be able to get counselling in an environment they were more comfortable in.

Was an eye opener for sure. Kids in care clearly very much forgotten about and left to rot in the system. Staff desperately trying their best while those in charge take little interest and provide the minimum amount of funding they can get away with.

Also a big shock when I heard some stats on how many kids are abused and how many are approached by random people on social media. This was back in the MySpace / Facebook days and before every kid was clutching a smartphone 24/7 so can only imagine that has got far far worse.

Yep absolutely

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Never seen it but I can imagine. I think part of the issue may well be that nobody wants to admit to scale of the problem, and its a problem across all demographics. I live by a school and when I'm driving to work there's no end of middle aged guys quite blatantly staring at the kids walking to school. To the point they are all over the fucking road.

Speaking to a friend who works in the legal profession in the area of child protection they say part of the issue is the number of parents who don't think there's a problem. Parents of older boys see no problem with them dating younger girls, parents of teen girls think their daughter(s) are the exception and aren't sexually active, sending content etc.

Maybe that's part of the reason we struggle to have an open conversation about some of the things involved. Parents prefer the head in the sand approach and assume their kids are fine.

This sounds like the problem with British prudishness on talking about sex and relationships

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

This is the original topic. I read (some of) the report last night and I can’t get over why this isn’t a simple law change. I know it’s not as fun as kick out all brown people, but actually doable and would have stopped most of this.

Why are you so keen to keep allowing fully grown men to fuck kids?

What a stupid thing of you to say.

The report has made the explicit link between sexual exploitation of underage girls (10-15) and suspects being over represented by men of Pakistani origin.

This is organised crime, not a rabble of weirdos who do creepy things like dating 16-17 year olds.

 

[chiefdave]

It really should be 18 with exemptions for both partners being similar ages. Everyone know someone who has dated 16/17 year olds in their mid to late twenties I think and behind their back it’s always “that’s fucken creepy”, yet we let it carry on.

I don't think increasing the age of consent is necessarily a bad thing but my gut feeling is it would make very little difference when it comes to grooming gangs and you run the risk of criminalising huge numbers of teenagers. Is not like kids are paying attention to the age of consent as it is. Not sure its quite so simple as just going 'make it 18' and the problem is solved.

Not really sure what you're wanting changing tbh. Quick glance at the Sexual Offences Act (not read the whole thing, there's a lot of it!) and I can't find anything to indicate we give a pass to middle aged men having sex with kids. I may very well be reading it wrong but to me it says anyone under 13 can never consent, 14-16 can be considered consensual if both people involved are 18 or under.

Does that not mean anyone over the age of 18 is, rightly, in deep shit if they have sex with someone under the age of consent? Where is the idea that fully grown adults have got a free pass with anyone over 13 come from, sentencing guidelines? Should be easier to change those than the law if that is the case.

 

[Grendel]

It is creepy, but it’s legal. It would still be legal if we implemented age gap limits as some countries do of 10 years. Besides, what would actually change?

You seem more animated by this than the original topic which strikes me as odd.

He is odd. Very odd.

 

[shmmeee]

I don't think increasing the age of consent is necessarily a bad thing but my gut feeling is it would make very little difference when it comes to grooming gangs and you run the risk of criminalising huge numbers of teenagers. Is not like kids are paying attention to the age of consent as it is. Not sure it’s quite so simple as just going 'make it 18' and the problem is solved.

Not really sure what you're wanting changing tbh. Quick glance at the Sexual Offences Act (not read the whole thing, there's a lot of it!) and I can't find anything to indicate we give a pass to middle aged men having sex with kids. I may very well be reading it wrong but to me it says anyone under 13 can never consent, 14-16 can be considered consensual if both people involved are 18 or under.

Does that not mean anyone over the age of 18 is, rightly, in deep shit if they have sex with someone under the age of consent? Where is the idea that fully grown adults have got a free pass with anyone over 13 come from, sentencing guidelines? Should be easier to change those than the law if that is the case.

No the change that’s needed is to not allow huge age gaps under the provisions intended for younger teenagers consensually having sex with each other. The 18 thing is just my thing about normalising the age of majority in this country.

We’ve effectively made the AoC in this country 13 if you can groom your victim into believing you love each other.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

No the change that’s needed is to not allow huge age gaps under the provisions intended for younger teenagers consensually having sex with each other. The 18 thing is just my thing about normalising the age of majority in this country.

We’ve effectively made the AoC in this country 13 if you can groom your victim into believing you love each other.

How?

 

[shmmeee]

How?

Because the guidance says that over 13 you can consent and gives no clear upper age limit. This has lead to there being no clear age where an official can say “no, this is illegal” and are instead left with fighting a victim and often a family who don’t see it as abuse. It puts a doubt in everyone’s mind whether to go after these abusers because they’re doing so with an uncooperative victim in many cases and maybe 22 is OK and this guy is 30 but maybe looks 22ish.

This was the actual guidance and on paper it’s clear, but it’s lead to an argument that children can consent with adults not just other children and that’s clearly wrong and could be cleared up with better guidance probably even without legislation.



It’s all too vague and these girls fell through those cracks. There’s victims still waiting to see their abusers arrested who are suffering from WhatsApp slander campaigns saying they consented, well that’s shouldn’t even be an issue.

 

[Grendel]

No the change that’s needed is to not allow huge age gaps under the provisions intended for younger teenagers consensually having sex with each other. The 18 thing is just my thing about normalising the age of majority in this country.

We’ve effectively made the AoC in this country 13 if you can groom your victim into believing you love each other.

What the fuck are you on about you creep?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Because the guidance says that over 13 you can consent and gives no clear upper age limit. This has lead to there being no clear age where an official can say “no, this is illegal” and are instead left with fighting a victim and often a family who don’t see it as abuse. It puts a doubt in everyone’s mind whether to go after these abusers because they’re doing so with an uncooperative victim in many cases and maybe 22 is OK and this guy is 30 but maybe looks 22ish.

This was the actual guidance and on paper it’s clear, but it’s lead to an argument that children can consent with adults not just other children and that’s clearly wrong and could be cleared up with better guidance probably even without legislation.

View attachment 43681

It’s all too vague and these girls fell through those cracks. There’s victims still waiting to see their abusers arrested who are suffering from WhatsApp slander campaigns saying they consented, well that’s shouldn’t even be an issue.

It isn’t vague, if a 13 year old says she loves a 30 year old, the 30 year old is still going to prison.

 

[chiefdave]

Because the guidance says that over 13 you can consent and gives no clear upper age limit. This has lead to there being no clear age where an official can say “no, this is illegal” and are instead left with fighting a victim and often a family who don’t see it as abuse. It puts a doubt in everyone’s mind whether to go after these abusers because they’re doing so with an uncooperative victim in many cases and maybe 22 is OK and this guy is 30 but maybe looks 22ish.

This was the actual guidance and on paper it’s clear, but it’s lead to an argument that children can consent with adults not just other children and that’s clearly wrong and could be cleared up with better guidance probably even without legislation.

View attachment 43681

It’s all too vague and these girls fell through those cracks. There’s victims still waiting to see their abusers arrested who are suffering from WhatsApp slander campaigns saying they consented, well that’s shouldn’t even be an issue.

That's not how I am reading the law:

A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),

(b)the touching is sexual, and

(c)either—

(i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

(ii)B is under 13.

That seems pretty clear to me, if guidelines are being published with incorrect information and / or applied incorrectly that's a much easier fix than changing the law. That can be implemented today. Lets not overcomplicate things. If we're changing the law, even if its fast tracked through with no opposition, it will take time.

I think what you're highlighting is actually a wider problem with the CPS, unless they are very certain that there will be a conviction they don't want to take anything forward. That's not just in these kind of cases, its in any cases. And a large factor in that seems to be that the justice system is on its knees and doesn't have the capacity to cope so they play a numbers game and only proceed with cases they believe will result in conviction.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That's not how I am reading the law:

That seems pretty clear to me, if guidelines are being published with incorrect information and / or applied incorrectly that's a much easier fix than changing the law. That can be implemented today. Lets not overcomplicate things. If we're changing the law, even if its fast tracked through with no opposition, it will take time.

I think what you're highlighting is actually a wider problem with the CPS, unless they are very certain that there will be a conviction they don't want to take anything forward. That's not just in these kind of cases, its in any cases. And a large factor in that seems to be that the justice system is on its knees and doesn't have the capacity to cope so they play a numbers game and only proceed with cases they believe will result in conviction.

Does the wording of the law assume that the offender is male?

 

[chiefdave]

Does the wording of the law assume that the offender is male?

Just says 'a person' so I'd say not.

IMO opinion we need to stop fucking around with enquiries and reports and talking about changing the law and start arresting people and locking them up.

 

[shmmeee]

That's not how I am reading the law:

That seems pretty clear to me, if guidelines are being published with incorrect information and / or applied incorrectly that's a much easier fix than changing the law. That can be implemented today. Lets not overcomplicate things. If we're changing the law, even if its fast tracked through with no opposition, it will take time.

I think what you're highlighting is actually a wider problem with the CPS, unless they are very certain that there will be a conviction they don't want to take anything forward. That's not just in these kind of cases, its in any cases. And a large factor in that seems to be that the justice system is on its knees and doesn't have the capacity to cope so they play a numbers game and only proceed with cases they believe will result in conviction.

Exactly, all the services are stretched and anything that allows them to prioritise one thing will happen. Look at that crime flowchart I posted the other day, what starts out as guidance ends up as “only investigate if they hand you a signed confession”, same thing here. What starts as “a 13 and 16 year old probably shouldn’t be prosecuted” ends up as “13 year old girls can have 30 year old boyfriends” because even if they can there’s that doubt about being able to fight all the way through.

Just say “Under 16s can’t consent to sex with over 18s. Full stop” and that would have meant that every teacher, social worker, and police person would have had to report clear and obvious sexual abuse, instead of seemingly being asked to make a judgement call about maturity and free consent vs grooming.

 

[chiefdave]

Can't be arsed to go back and find it now but there was a post earlier that pretty much implied the problem was all down to 'boat people'. Another concern I have is that if we focus too closely on one group we're going to end up giving other groups an easy time as the spotlight will be off them.

Casey is speaking with the home affairs committee today and has already said that people are drawing conclusions that aren't there and cherry picking things to suit their causes.

The peer urged people to "keep calm" on the subject of ethnicity.

Pointing out that her report had said data on the ethnicity of perpetrators was "incomplete and unreliable", she said: "If you look at the data on child sexual exploitation, suspects and offenders, it's disproportionately Asian heritage.

"If you look at the data for child abuse, it is not disproportionate, and it is white men.

"So again, just [a] note to everybody really, outside here rather than in here, let's just keep calm here about how you interrogate data and what you draw from it."

 

[tisza]

That's not how I am reading the law:

That seems pretty clear to me, if guidelines are being published with incorrect information and / or applied incorrectly that's a much easier fix than changing the law. That can be implemented today. Lets not overcomplicate things. If we're changing the law, even if its fast tracked through with no opposition, it will take time.

I think what you're highlighting is actually a wider problem with the CPS, unless they are very certain that there will be a conviction they don't want to take anything forward. That's not just in these kind of cases, its in any cases. And a large factor in that seems to be that the justice system is on its knees and doesn't have the capacity to cope so they play a numbers game and only proceed with cases they believe will result in conviction.

What is it now? All crimes around 7% result in an actual charge, only around 2% of sex cases?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

It isn’t vague, if a 13 year old says she loves a 30 year old, the 30 year old is still going to prison.

I don’t think statutory rape is it? U13 it is

 

[shmmeee]

It isn’t vague, if a 13 year old says she loves a 30 year old, the 30 year old is still going to prison.

Evidently not.

 

[shmmeee]

I don’t think statutory rape is it? U13 it is

It’s still illegal. It’s still statutory rape. But it’s not being prosecuted en masse or treated as automatic abuse.

 

[Captain Dart]

FFS the enquiry is about organised gangs and you are proving yourselves to be a bunch of barrack room lawyers keen to debate the technical meaning of rape.

Pathetic.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Racism concerns certainly played a part but by far the biggest part was a societal attitude that a 13 year old girl can have a 30 year old boyfriend consensually. Race wouldn’t come into it if the law was clear. But to be clear the accepted view in schools, police, and social care at the time was that if a 13/14 year old said they were consensually dating an adult man that was OK and to leave it. That’s why when suddenly you hear about issues with Asian men there’s not an immediate “oh these guys are pedos” response and a belief that the complainants wouldn’t complain if their daughter was “dating” a white guy, because lets me honest in many cases at that time they wouldn’t.

Change the law to make it clear adults cannot ever consensually have sex with underage children. It’s really that simple. It will lead to a lot of white guys getting arrested though, because while they don’t tend to do this level of abuse in gangs that the Pakistani immigrants seem to be doing, an awful lot of late twenties and early thirties white British guys fuck underage kids under the guise of being their boyfriend. I saw it when I was a teenager and I saw it when I was a teacher and I experienced the complete indifference when reporting it.

The law is clear though isn't it? Somebody having sex with a person under the age of consent is carrying out statutory rape. I agree with you on the attitudes point. Girls in care or from 'chaotic' circumstances were treated differently by the authorities and, lets be honest, by society in general.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

FFS the enquiry is about organised gangs and you are proving yourselves to be a bunch of barrack room lawyers keen to debate the technical meaning of rape.

Pathetic.

And how do you think the gangs are getting away with it? Partly because there's a debate about what is and isn't rape.

 

[Grendel]

The law is clear though isn't it? Somebody having sex with a person under the age of consent is carrying out statutory rape. I agree with you on the attitudes point. Girls in care or from 'chaotic' circumstances were treated differently by the authorities and, lets be honest, by society in general.

Yes and it carries a maximum of 14 years in jail - this is a really strange conversation

"For the statutory rape offence of sexual activity with a child under 16, the maximum sentence is 14 years’ imprisonment"

 

[Grendel]

And how do you think the gangs are getting away with it? Partly because there's a debate about what is and isn't rape.

Regarding age there is no debate

 

[PVA]

The law is clear though isn't it?

Not according to the report it's not:

"For cases involving 13–15-year-olds, the law is less clearcut. Although any sexual activity with a 13–15-year-old is unlawful, the decision on whether to charge, and which offence to charge a perpetrator with, is left more open to interpretation.

The intention behind this is largely aimed at avoiding criminalising relationships between teenagers or people who are very close in age, or criminalising someone who reasonably believed a child was older than they were, while still protecting children from exploitation.

However, in practice, this audit saw this nuance in law being used to the benefit of much older men who had groomed vulnerable children for sex."

 

[tisza]

Not according to the report it's not:

"For cases involving 13–15-year-olds, the law is less clearcut. Although any sexual activity with a 13–15-year-old is unlawful, the decision on whether to charge, and which offence to charge a perpetrator with, is left more open to interpretation.

The intention behind this is largely aimed at avoiding criminalising relationships between teenagers or people who are very close in age, or criminalising someone who reasonably believed a child was older than they were, while still protecting children from exploitation.

However, in practice, this audit saw this nuance in law being used to the benefit of much older men who had groomed vulnerable children for sex."

Hopefully this is one of the areas the inquiry will address. Who is making these intepretations - police, CPS, social services or someone else? Holding them accountable. Then slamming these "loopholes" shut.

 

[Grendel]

Not according to the report it's not:

"For cases involving 13–15-year-olds, the law is less clearcut. Although any sexual activity with a 13–15-year-old is unlawful, the decision on whether to charge, and which offence to charge a perpetrator with, is left more open to interpretation.

The intention behind this is largely aimed at avoiding criminalising relationships between teenagers or people who are very close in age, or criminalising someone who reasonably believed a child was older than they were, while still protecting children from exploitation.

However, in practice, this audit saw this nuance in law being used to the benefit of much older men who had groomed vulnerable children for sex."

Child grooming is a crime in itself and can carry a sentence of 10 years alone

 

[Grendel]

FFS the enquiry is about organised gangs and you are proving yourselves to be a bunch of barrack room lawyers keen to debate the technical meaning of rape.

Pathetic.

It is strange I admit.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

You've clearly decided what the truth is and worked backwards from the conclusion.

The truth is that this is a massive scandal, and as well as politicians and people who are supposed to be in safeguarding roles, there are members of society that have massively let down the victims by not only covering it up, but also, up until now, been effective at having a pop at those raising concerns so that it wouldn't be talked about and dealt with. It isn't going to work any more, however.

Social media today is flooded with videos of these people on record shouting down and calling others racist, or insinuating they 'jumped on the far-right bandwagon' when they tried to speak out. It is actually embarrasing, as are the posts here from several members who still largely won't discuss the topic, but will insinuate anyone getting mad about it are going overboard. The most dissapointing one was sarcastically suggesting it was odd to be on the forum with so many 'rape apologists'. A direct translation of a cowardly get out which only demonstrates further that is easier to have a go at someone raising the issues, rather than talking about the rape gangs themselves. Like it or not, that is classic apologist behaviour itself, so whilst you can get upset about my comments, some of you need to try harder in not looking like this topic is uncomfortable for you, and that you don't want this problem dealt with. That isn't on me that it comes across this way. You've displayed more anger at me than you have these people committing the crimes.

The report is out there to see. There's no hiding from it now. This will be a proper inquiry and I suspect this will be one of the biggest scandals Britain has seen for some time.

You'll have to forgive me for feeling compelled to call people out, or not swallowing the bullshit semantics that are going on in a lot of the posts since this announcement. I'm not going to back down, so if those people who have displayed the same patterns on this topic continue to do so, they need to prepare to get more uncomfortable.

 

[mmttww]

won't discuss the topic, but will insinuate anyone getting mad about it are going overboard.

You might try to wrap your head around the idea that branding people apologists for paedophiles isn't likely keep the discussion 'on topic'.

and if you've got examples of people insinuating this, post them, because I've not seen anything even approaching that being said.

Some of the stuff you're saying is pretty unnerving tbh. It's not a mile off making direct threats to people, and I'm not the first to spot that.

 

[fatso]

FFS the enquiry is about organised gangs and you are proving yourselves to be a bunch of barrack room lawyers keen to debate the technical meaning of rape.

Pathetic.

It appears it's easier for people to muddy the waters rather than to admit what's actually been happening. It's like they can't admit that gangs of Pakistani Muslim men have been conducting organised rape and sexual abuse of our children.

Even Starmer was recently accusing anyone who wanted a full enquiry of being extreme right wing racists.

It's beyond fucking weird.

What next, honour killings are OK due to cultural reasons????