Rolf Harris
Jul 5th 2014, 1:05 am
#151
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,518
Re: Rolf Harris
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.
Jul 5th 2014, 1:30 am
#152
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 0
Re: Rolf Harris
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.
Jul 5th 2014, 2:11 am
#153
(It's not my real name)
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Ilukapool. WA
Posts: 12,467
Re: Rolf Harris
"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
Jul 5th 2014, 2:45 am
#154
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Hill overlooking the SE Melbourne suburbs
Posts: 16,622
Re: Rolf Harris
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
"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
Jul 5th 2014, 2:52 am
#155
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Rolf Harris
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.
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.
Jul 5th 2014, 3:06 am
#156
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348
Re: Rolf Harris
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.
Jul 5th 2014, 3:07 am
#157
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 0
Re: Rolf Harris
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
Jul 5th 2014, 9:55 am
#158
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,695
Re: Rolf Harris
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.
Jul 5th 2014, 2:17 pm
#159
Banned
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Sunny Sidcup
Posts: 2,872
Re: Rolf Harris
Just the fact that you have a "walk in" "drobe" makes it priceless!!
Jul 5th 2014, 3:03 pm
#160
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Finally now living in Lo Marabu, Rojales, and it feels like home
Posts: 3,569
Re: Rolf Harris
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.
Jul 5th 2014, 3:51 pm
#161
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: Rolf Harris
Jul 5th 2014, 4:27 pm
#162
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348
Re: Rolf Harris
I disagree. Even 16 as it currently is it seems too young. 18 is a better age - if only to protect the young from older predators while also giving them time to mature among their own age group. Young people need the extra protection at least until they leave school - which increasingly these days is 18.
Jul 5th 2014, 9:02 pm
#163
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 0
Re: Rolf Harris
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.
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.
Jul 5th 2014, 9:05 pm
#164
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 0
Re: Rolf Harris
I'm guessing your kids are either grown up and left home, or non existent.
Last edited by scrubbedexpat098; Jul 5th 2014 at 10:03 pm.