Tags
crime, human rights, rape, sex
(not satire – it’s the UK today)
Eddy Shah and his other (mainly establishment) supporters have argued that if an under-age girl consents to sex with an adult it’s not the guy’s fault for going ahead and having sex with her.
This is a very clear attempt to blur the lines on what is actually a very simple matter.
Presumably even Shah would agree it’s not OK for an adult to have ‘consensual’ sex with a 5-year old – because clearly a child of that age would be too young to understand what they have consented to?
OK – so at what age does Shah and his rich, famous and powerful supporters think someone is capable of consenting to sex? 7? 10? 12?
In this country, we have agreed that the age a child can legally consent to sex is 16.
If Shah and his supporters think 16 is too high, they are free to lobby and campaign for a change in the law – although personally I think 16 is probably about right.
Until then though there are no blurred lines.
If you have sex with someone under the age of 16 you are COMMITTING A VERY SERIOUS CRIME. Whatever the circumstances.
And that includes the rich, the famous and the powerful too.
And while we’re on the subject – why are we also allowing the concept of rape to be blurred?
If someone didn’t consent to sex – or couldn’t consent because they were too drunk or were asleep or whatever – it’s rape. Whatever the circumstances.
It’s not f**king rocket science.
.
Related articles by Tom Pride:
Owen Jones, the SWP, the Pope, Alexei Sayle, George Galloway and Rape
Twitter’s manager of news – @marksluckie – gets a bad case of hypocrisy over rape threats
The UK judge who thinks benefit fraudsters should be jailed but lets rapists go free
Old celebrities arrested for child abuse are all very well. But what about the politicians?
It was the police – not the BBC – who wrongly named Lord McAlpine in abuse allegations
How did Cyril Smith get away with paedophilia? By threatening tweeters and bloggers with libel!
Child abuse scandal can of worms – just who is Daily Mail reporter David Rose?
High level child abuse cover-up? Why has Theresa May barred a US journalist from the UK?
.
Please feel free to comment – you don’t need to register and I’m extremely minimal with the moderating – so please go ahead.
.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Pride's Purge 
Pingback: No blurred lines – Eddy Shah and co are excusing paedophilia » Alternative News Network
Pingback: No blurred lines - Eddy Shah and co are excusin...
in japan if you touch a woman in the subway you will be sued, so men buy some gloves to do it without getting sued. shah is looking for the likes of those gloves
LikeLike
16 should be young enough for guys there age.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Far be it from me –.
LikeLike
There is so much good work underway from the likes of ChildLine and Victim Support – undermining this good work in such a damaging way is so shocking that I shed tears on behalf of all children who’ve been traumatised and then re traumatised in court or wherever. Mental scars can heal more slowly than physical scars – in some cases they will never heal at all. I shake my head in disbelief at Eddy Shah.
LikeLike
Eddy Shah has a bad history in the Uk .. was the instigator of serious industrial dispute .. obviously he is a shafter all round. Amazes me that these people dont know the law or think its doesnt apply to them. But then it doesnt.
LikeLike
likewise, if a child is too young to knowledgeably consent to sex, then they should be too young to be prosecuted for rape (as they are unknowledgeable about the sexual implications or their physical attack – should be a.b.h. or something similar). Double standards of legalese…
LikeLike
I think he is trying to chat up Barbera Hewson….
Andy
LikeLike
Right on!
LikeLike
Apart from wilfully misunderstanding the law which implacably states that a child under 16 cannot consent to sex, the grisly old perv seems to think he is/was some sort of celebrity viv-a-vis his comment that “underage girls going with celebrities need to take responsibility for their actions…”
LikeLike
In all honesty I think everything to do with consensual sex is blurred and I am not trying to excuse paedophilia nor rape in any shape or form. I only know from my youth, young girls of 14 or 15 looked anything from 16 to 18 when dressed in mini skirts and makeup, frequenting bars and were not ignorant of sexual relations at this age either, so it is understandable that some men were prosecuted for having sex with an underage person albeit in all ignorance.
The same cannot be said for rape, but where this crime is blurred is when women are being drugged via drinks and have limited memory of the rape, making prosecution difficult.
Personally I would not like to be a judge or on the jury of such cases because in reality as stated here the parameter’s can so easily blurred especially when the victims and witnesses are castigated for doing what most young people do, getting dressed up and going out to hopefully enjoy themselves not find themselves a victim of non-consensual sex or violent rape.
LikeLike
The sexualisation of children led by the liberal elite and old perverts like Shah has been going on for quite some time now.
There should be mandatory prison sentences for anyone over 16 who is guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person who is under 16 years of age, regardless of consent.
Taking the point made by Guy Fawkes, when I was a young man there were young girls under the age of consent who acted and looked much older and this is clearly still the case.
These girls were known then as ‘Jailbait’ and it was a massive social taboo to be seen to be consorting with them by ones peers.
That taboo seems now to have disappeared and young men in their 20s do not seem to baulk at having ‘girlfriends’ who are under 16 years old.
Sanctions should be applied to the parents of children who become sexually active when under the age of consent even if both parties are underage.
LikeLike
if the jury at his trial had heard that do you think they would of found him innocent.
LikeLike
“Why”, you ask. Because most people have no Holy Fear Of The Lord. If they did, this “topic” wouldn’t even be discussed because this type sin wouldn’t be happening–in most cases. Because The Name Of Jesus is supposed to NOT be spoken. It might “offend someone”. Because sex is in the devil’s camp, and those who do not live for The Lord, live for the devil. Age 16? What a joke! Consent? Read The Holy Bible. Neither lady or man are supposed to have sex before marriage–regardless of age. And not with anyone else! If anyone doesn’t like what has been written above, it’s your “choice”. One day, EVERY person will stand before The King Of Kings And The Lord Of Lords. Don’t be fooled.
LikeLike
Tom – You haven’t said whether you still think people should be sent to jail for insulting the dead victims of tragedies. I would hope that you have the integrity to either defend what you said or admit you were wrong.
LikeLike
P.S. I mostly agree with you on the subject of this thread, though of course it depends on reasonable belief about the age of the person concerned, so it’s not quite as clear-cut as you might like to think.
LikeLike
Aynuck
“Sanctions should be applied to the parents of children who become sexually active when under the age of consent even if both parties are underage”, I’m afraid I cannot agree with these sentiments as teenagers by nature experiment sexually with one another and I consider your statement to be too authoritarian, likened to fining parents whose children play truant from school. Teenagers tend to have minds of their own and although we can try and lead them in the right direction, too much force from either parents or state can be detrimental to social relations with both authoritarian figures, children sometimes need to find out or work things out for themselves without being controlled all of the time.
Adults who wittingly abuse children on the other hand, should have the full force of the law thrown at them.
LikeLike
So if two children are married at the age of 12 by a paedophile priest somewhere in the world, does your Lord say it’s OK for them to f*ck each other?
LikeLike
…. or a 50 year old man and a 12 year old girl?
LikeLike
Effie – I’ll tell you what, if you actually engage in a serious discussion with me, I’ll make a substantial contribution to Christian Aid. I can almost guarantee that you will not……..
LikeLike
Oh dear! These poor 20, 30, 40 or 50 something males who are being seduced by predatory and amazingly mature 13 year old girls. Well, here’s a thought: if you’ve any doubt about a girl’s age, just leave her alone. Problem solved.
Here’s another thought: if you can’t tell a girl is under age after talking to her for a while, YOU are amazingly immature. Just keep your hands (and other parts of your anatomy) to yourself and go searching for a grown up woman.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Ned Hamson Second Line View of the News and commented:
Pretty basic – guys keep it in your pocket with children!
LikeLike