|
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by stevenglish1
(Post 11325587)
so then it is ok to judge other cultures by your own standards
|
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 11325590)
The age of consent has been much lower in our own history. It is usually raised where people live longer, become more educated and women's rights achieve more importance. I don't think that it's desirable that 13-year-olds should marry, but I also don't think it's the cataclysmic disaster you are implying. Where it is the norm, the participants may well be happy with it themselves.
I personally think our culture has got it right, wrt what we find acceptable, but I think the boundaries should not be pushed anymore. |
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by ozzieeagle
(Post 11324896)
In Austria, Italy and Germany the age of consent is 14; in Sweden, France and Denmark it is 15 – and Spain recently raised its age of consent from 13 to 16. Meanwhile in Turkey and Malta, teenagers have to wait until they are 18 for sex to be legal.
"HAGERSTOWN, MD–During a conversation at work last Friday, drill-press operator Pete Cromartie revealed a disturbing familiarity with various states' age-of-consent laws. "I mentioned to Pete that I'd be visiting family in Pennsylvania over the weekend, and he says, 'You oughta pick up some chicks there, 'cause they only gotta be 16,'" coworker Geoff Richardson said. "Then he says, 'South Carolina's the best: 15.' I mean, that's seriously creepy." Richardson said he later heard Cromartie talk about a bill pending in the Hawaii legislature that would lower the state's age of consent to 13" Man Knows Unsettling Amount About Nationwide Age-Of-Consent Laws | The Onion - America's Finest News Source |
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by renth
(Post 11325624)
Man Knows Unsettling Amount About Nationwide Age-Of-Consent Laws
"HAGERSTOWN, MD–During a conversation at work last Friday, drill-press operator Pete Cromartie revealed a disturbing familiarity with various states' age-of-consent laws. "I mentioned to Pete that I'd be visiting family in Pennsylvania over the weekend, and he says, 'You oughta pick up some chicks there, 'cause they only gotta be 16,'" coworker Geoff Richardson said. "Then he says, 'South Carolina's the best: 15.' I mean, that's seriously creepy." Richardson said he later heard Cromartie talk about a bill pending in the Hawaii legislature that would lower the state's age of consent to 13" Man Knows Unsettling Amount About Nationwide Age-Of-Consent Laws | The Onion - America's Finest News Source |
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by Kapri
(Post 11325526)
These men are being tried in the UK where the age of coillegal is 16, so the age of consent in Spain is irrelevant.
Yes, it's a thorny subject but it is sif theill possible to use common sense. It's highly unlikely that a 17 year old boy would be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year old girl. Make that a 40 year old man, and it's likely he would be charged. Grown men should not be having sex with / or groping teenage girls. |
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11325478)
So legally in Oz and UK 16 is the age. Some would, including myself, that for many women this is too young. In Spain 13 is the age. Is this a kid? For the Spanish its not. Village in India? Your moral view point and mine has no baring on world wide rules for age of consent.
|
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by Beoz
(Post 11325651)
A 17 year old boy would be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year old. Its illegal.. As for a 40 year old man with a 17 year old. Why would he be charged? No law broken there if the age of consent is 16.
|
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by stevenglish1
(Post 11324960)
I would love to know myself, I have never wished harm on anyone that wasn't a paeophile, it is utterly unforgiveable
Yes it is utterly unforgivable. How any civilised, decent human being would want to protect them, would be OK with the knowledge that they will eventually walk free to recommit after just a few years baffles me. I just cannot begin to understand this thought process. I find it exceptionally difficult to digest that there are a lot of people in a supposed civilised society, like Britain for example, that want to protect and want to give anonymity to these revolting species. The pain the victims, their family and friends suffer after the incident is horrendous, I can only imagine. But to be then told that he ( or she ) will be walking in the streets in just a few years is an absolute insult, a mockery to any kind of justice system that should be in place. Given the chance they always re-offend, because apparently it's a 'mental condition' but yet there's no cure. They deserve to die for their crimes. They deserve to never be among normally society again. Children should come first always. But why aren't they? It makes me so angry. The Ian Watkins case was the only one that I'm really aware of where some kind of justice was done, 35 years he got. I have to say that case was truly sickening and I never read about all of it, as I just couldn't. But I read enough. At the end of the day a paedophile is a paedophile and they all have the same 'goal' they should all be dealt the same consequence. |
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by renth
(Post 11320716)
I was having a clear-out of my walk in wardrobe this weekend as we are decorating and found a 1970's boxed Rolf Harris Stylophone.
Do you think it might be worth more or less after this verdict? I might put it on eBay. |
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 11325590)
The age of consent has been much lower in our own history. It is usually raised where people live longer, become more educated and women's rights achieve more importance. I don't think that it's desirable that 13-year-olds should marry, but I also don't think it's the cataclysmic disaster you are implying. Where it is the norm, the participants may well be happy with it themselves.
I think 14 is right but that does not mean if that person is not ready then they should be considering it. |
Re: Rolf Harris
|
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by andyrich666
(Post 11326097)
The age of consent should be based on science and experience, not culture.
I think 14 is right but that does not mean if that person is not ready then they should be considering it. |
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by Molly Coddle
(Post 11325873)
Yes it is utterly unforgivable.
How any civilised, decent human being would want to protect them, would be OK with the knowledge that they will eventually walk free to recommit after just a few years baffles me. I just cannot begin to understand this thought process. I find it exceptionally difficult to digest that there are a lot of people in a supposed civilised society, like Britain for example, that want to protect and want to give anonymity to these revolting species. The pain the victims, their family and friends suffer after the incident is horrendous, I can only imagine. But to be then told that he ( or she ) will be walking in the streets in just a few years is an absolute insult, a mockery to any kind of justice system that should be in place. Given the chance they always re-offend, because apparently it's a 'mental condition' but yet there's no cure. They deserve to die for their crimes. They deserve to never be among normally society again. Children should come first always. But why aren't they? It makes me so angry. The Ian Watkins case was the only one that I'm really aware of where some kind of justice was done, 35 years he got. I have to say that case was truly sickening and I never read about all of it, as I just couldn't. But I read enough. At the end of the day a paedophile is a paedophile and they all have the same 'goal' they should all be dealt the same consequence. |
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by andyrich666
(Post 11326097)
The age of consent should be based on science and experience, not culture.
I think 14 is right but that does not mean if that person is not ready then they should be considering it. |
Re: Rolf Harris
Originally Posted by stevenglish1
(Post 11325660)
Try reading Kapris post again, she said nothing about 40 year olds sleeping with 17 year olds. But you're right that wouldn't be illegal, just immoral
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 8:06 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.