Age of consent should be 13, says barrister

[davieG]

A prominent barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13.

Barbara Hewson told online magazine Spiked that the move was necessary in the wake of the Savile scandal to end the "persecution of old men".

She also said that complainants should no longer receive anonymity.

The NSPCC called her views "outdated and simply ill-informed" and said to hear them "from a highly experienced barrister simply beggars belief".

Her remarks come after a number of high-profile arrests over allegations of historical sexual offences in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

Among those to have been convicted is former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall, who admitted 14 charges of indecently assaulting girls, including one aged nine, between 1967 and 1985.

Ms Hewson described Hall's crimes as "low-level misdemeanours" which "ordinarily... would not be prosecuted".

'Prurient charade'

"What we have here is the manipulation of the British criminal justice system to produce scapegoats on demand. It is a grotesque spectacle," she said.

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

She argues for an end to complainant anonymity, a strict statute of limitations to prevent prosecutions after a substantial amount of time has passed and a reduction in the age of consent to 13.

She said 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 crimes comparable to gang rapes and murders and "anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality".

The NSPCC described crimes such as Hall's as "incredibly serious" and said that "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."

It also argued that complainant anonymity should be maintained and that historical prosecutions should be allowed as "many who are abused are bullied, blackmailed and shamed into staying silent, often well into adulthood".

[leicsmac]

Use a maths rule. Absolute legal limit 15, then the "divide by 2 and add 7" rule should be applied as a limit up to 18/21, where age should no longer be a legal issue. 

[Carl the Llama]

Well that's just dumb.  Tenner says she knows someone who raped a 13 year old.

[Bayfox]

No just No.

I'm sorry but 13 year olds having a feel and a fumble with another 13 year old fair enough, but making it legal for adults to have sex with kids is just wrong. At 13 you are not old enough and do not have enough life experience to decide to sleep with an older person and the ramifications of more pregnant teens when we have a problem in this country already. Sorry just can't see any sense to this.

[Guest BlueBrett]

Somebody get round and check that woman's hard-drive

[purpleronnie]

we are not spain, and we should all be thankful of that.

[Carl the Llama]

we are not spain, and we should all be thankful of that.

I dunno, I quite like tapas.

 

 

 

 

If you know what I mean.

[MooseBreath]

It's an interesting one. On the one hand sex is perfectly natural and you can argue that the age one is fertile is the natural age of consent. The other argument seems to centre around the idea that having sex at a young age is somehow psychologically damaging. I wonder if that is really the case. There is certainly nothing wrong with it physically like there is for say eating unhealthy food and that makes you fat which can be incredibly damaging psychologically, and yet we don't put an age of consent on burgers. So what is so wrong with a human being who is designed for having sex, having sex? I can imagine a scenario whereby a man uses a young girl for sex and she gets a bit upset, but is that really such a crime? In any case something like that will certainly happen to the girl at some point and it will hurt just as much whether she's 15 or 21. It seems to me that we're projecting traditional, conservative socially acceptable views of relationships onto sex and using that to incriminate people who cross some arbitrary boundary when what we should be doing is saying, sex is fun, it is something to be enjoyed, enjoy it safely, whenever you want

[Finnegan]

It's an interesting one. On the one hand sex is perfectly natural and you can argue that the age one is fertile is the natural age of consent. The other argument seems to centre around the idea that having sex at a young age is somehow psychologically damaging. I wonder if that is really the case. There is certainly nothing wrong with it physically like there is for say eating unhealthy food and that makes you fat which can be incredibly damaging psychologically, and yet we don't put an age of consent on burgers. So what is so wrong with a human being who is designed for having sex, having sex? I can imagine a scenario whereby a man uses a young girl for sex and she gets a bit upset, but is that really such a crime? In any case something like that will certainly happen to the girl at some point and it will hurt just as much whether she's 15 or 21. It seems to me that we're projecting traditional, conservative socially acceptable views of relationships onto sex and using that to incriminate people who cross some arbitrary boundary when what we should be doing is saying, sex is fun, it is something to be enjoyed, enjoy it safely, whenever you want

A bag full of sweets, a wink and a smile...

[Guest BlueBrett]

It's an interesting one. On the one hand sex is perfectly natural and you can argue that the age one is fertile is the natural age of consent. The other argument seems to centre around the idea that having sex at a young age is somehow psychologically damaging. I wonder if that is really the case. There is certainly nothing wrong with it physically like there is for say eating unhealthy food and that makes you fat which can be incredibly damaging psychologically, and yet we don't put an age of consent on burgers. So what is so wrong with a human being who is designed for having sex, having sex? I can imagine a scenario whereby a man uses a young girl for sex and she gets a bit upset, but is that really such a crime? In any case something like that will certainly happen to the girl at some point and it will hurt just as much whether she's 15 or 21. It seems to me that we're projecting traditional, conservative socially acceptable views of relationships onto sex and using that to incriminate people who cross some arbitrary boundary when what we should be doing is saying, sex is fun, it is something to be enjoyed, enjoy it safely, whenever you want

The younger the girl the easier she is to manipulate because she will have less socio-economic mobility and less awareness of they way sex has become commoditised in modern society.  Plus the average 13 year old girl is far from full developed.  She could probably handle one or two on here but a fully grown penis would more than likely do some damage.

Not forgetting the fact that sex makes babies and a 13 year old, however emotionally or physically mature, is totally incapable of supporting a child.

[Guest]

It's an interesting one. On the one hand sex is perfectly natural and you can argue that the age one is fertile is the natural age of consent. The other argument seems to centre around the idea that having sex at a young age is somehow psychologically damaging. I wonder if that is really the case. There is certainly nothing wrong with it physically like there is for say eating unhealthy food and that makes you fat which can be incredibly damaging psychologically, and yet we don't put an age of consent on burgers. So what is so wrong with a human being who is designed for having sex, having sex? I can imagine a scenario whereby a man uses a young girl for sex and she gets a bit upset, but is that really such a crime? In any case something like that will certainly happen to the girl at some point and it will hurt just as much whether she's 15 or 21. It seems to me that we're projecting traditional, conservative socially acceptable views of relationships onto sex and using that to incriminate people who cross some arbitrary boundary when what we should be doing is saying, sex is fun, it is something to be enjoyed, enjoy it safely, whenever you want

 

 

Paraphrase, if the man is hungry enough the girl is of age of consent.

[ADK]

Hope this is a joke.

[scottthefox]

The age of consent was raised from 13 to 16 in the 1885 for a reason. Granted some girls at 14/15 are extremely developed but there are others that really aren't. In my opinion, 16 is too young in some cases yet a medium needs to be found somewhere. Keep it at 16.

[Parafox]

Jesus!!

 

I'm ashamed to say my daughter was sexually active at 14, pregnant at 15 and again at 17. Because of her personal background as a result of coming from care at a young age, she lacked the skills to make rational judgments (and still does, though there is improvement)

 

We tried to have the "father" prosecuted but the police didn't want to know as they said it was consensual.

 

I know people on here will make judgements about her but she lacks capacity in certain areas and as such was far too immature at 14 to think about the consequences of a sexual relationship. As a result we have lost a grandaughter to adoption.

 

And that's my point really, 13 is just way to young to take responsibility for the pontential outcome of sex. How on earth a professional experienced lawyer make such a proposal is mind boggling.

[MooseBreath]

The younger the girl the easier she is to manipulate because she will have less socio-economic mobility and less awareness of they way sex has become commoditised in modern society. Plus the average 13 year old girl is far from full developed. She could probably handle one or two on here but a fully grown penis would more than likely do some damage.

Not forgetting the fact that sex makes babies and a 13 year old, however emotionally or physically mature, is totally incapable of supporting a child.

How are you defining manipulation in this context? Clearly there needs to be choice involved, otherwise it's rape. If a girl wants and chooses to have sex how is she being manipulated? What damage is being done, which wouldn't also be done to a 16 or a 20 year old?

As for the physical side to your argument, I don't know for sure but I'm inclined to disagree on the basis that if a girl is capable of delivering a baby then she is capable of having sex. It is what our bodies are designed to do, afterall.

[ADK]

Jesus!!

 

I'm ashamed to say my daughter was sexually active at 14, pregnant at 15 and again at 17. Because of her personal background as a result of coming from care at a young age, she lacked the skills to make rational judgments (and still does, though there is improvement)

 

We tried to have the "father" prosecuted but the police didn't want to know as they said it was consensual.

 

I know people on here will make judgements about her but she lacks capacity in certain areas and as such was far too immature at 14 to think about the consequences of a sexual relationship. As a result we have lost a grandaughter to adoption.

 

And that's my point really, 13 is just way to young to take responsibility for the pontential outcome of sex. How on earth a professional experienced lawyer make such a proposal is mind boggling.

 

 

Agree with this, even late teens are usually not mature enough. What possible benefit to society is there for young teens to have sex with older men?

[Carl the Llama]

Agree with this, even late teens are usually not mature enough. What possible benefit to society is there for young teens to have sex with older men?

A tighter twat's more likely to stimulate their decaying penises?

[Charl91]

How are you defining manipulation in this context? Clearly there needs to be choice involved, otherwise it's rape. If a girl wants and chooses to have sex how is she being manipulated? What damage is being done, which wouldn't also be done to a 16 or a 20 year old?

As for the physical side to your argument, I don't know for sure but I'm inclined to disagree on the basis that if a girl is capable of delivering a baby then she is capable of having sex. It is what our bodies are designed to do, afterall.

 

 

Because a 13 year old is not mature enough to know the risks they are taking and make the decision to potentially have a kid/get an STD/whatever. I don't understand how you don't see how a 13 year old could be manipulated into having sex.

 

I mean, fvck it, why don't we just allow people to have sex with 8 year olds, as long as they "consent".

 

16 is fine.

[Guest BlueBrett]

How are you defining manipulation in this context? Clearly there needs to be choice involved, otherwise it's rape. If a girl wants and chooses to have sex how is she being manipulated? What damage is being done, which wouldn't also be done to a 16 or a 20 year old?

As for the physical side to your argument, I don't know for sure but I'm inclined to disagree on the basis that if a girl is capable of delivering a baby then she is capable of having sex. It is what our bodies are designed to do, afterall.

I'm defining manipulation as taking advantage of one's superior knowledge and access to resources to persuade someone who, if similarly informed and situated, might not do what it is that you want.

 

Just because a girl gets a period it doesn't mean she is capable of having a baby.  Even fully grown women frequently require c-sections because their hips are too narrow. I'd imagine this would be the case in all but the very fattest 13 year old.

Also who is supposed to look after the kid? The girl isn't likely to be able to provide for it by selling haribo in the playground so I guess the State would have to step in.  Wouldn't have thought you'd be in favour of that? It's no coincidence that the current age of consent is also the age at which you are free to leave full time education.

[Manwell Pablo]

A tighter twat's more likely to stimulate their decaying penises?

 

Valid point

[Guest]

There are plenty of 20+ year olds who are not mentally mature enough for sex.

 

Maybe people should have to take a maturity test before they are allowed to have sex. That's probably in the UKIP manifesto.

[ADK]

But then their voters would never reproduce.

[Guest]

But then their voters would never reproduce.

 

 

good point.

[Guest BlueBrett]

is it? or is it unfounded prejudicial nonsense?

[MooseBreath]

Because a 13 year old is not mature enough to know the risks they are taking and make the decision to potentially have a kid/get an STD/whatever. I don't understand how you don't see how a 13 year old could be manipulated into having sex.

I mean, fvck it, why don't we just allow people to have sex with 8 year olds, as long as they "consent".

16 is fine.

8 is not a natural age to be having sex so there is no validity in that comparison.

If the only thing which is wrong with a younger person having sex is the risk of an sti or pregnancy then why not criminalise the act of getting a girl of a certain age pregnant or giving her an sti? The responsibility would then be on the older party to ensure the sex is safe from any potential negative consequences.