Quote: Perry Nium @ May 18 2008, 6:10 PM BSTIs it illegal to shag a girl under the age of 16 if you're under 16 yourself?
If so I'm a big fat slobbering pedo-scum, as are most of the posters on this forum I suspect.
Yes it is, also somewhat of a lighter view taken of it, as would be expected.
And I'm not! I was a good boy. 
Quote: Aaron @ May 18 2008, 6:28 PM BSTAnd I'm not! I was a good am an ugly boy.
I didn't shag anyone, man, woman or beast until I was 16 on the dot!
P.S. Aaron!!! tut tut.
That's for us to say! 
Quote: zooo @ May 18 2008, 6:06 PM BSTBut JK was never rich or powerful.
Was he...?
Ohhh yes, more behind the scenes kinda person for most of his career, but he apparently was one of the two original Rocky backers, I think I read. Check out some of his autobiography videos on YouTube, and the bio on his website. He discovered Genesis, he gave Jimi Hendrix the song which made him famous, and worked with some massive names.
He's rich enough to be able to afford to offer free downloads of a whole DVD from his musical's website. Royalty cheques evidently still flooding in!
Quote: zooo @ May 18 2008, 6:29 PM BSTI didn't shag anyone, man, woman or beast until I was 16 on the dot!
On the dot? Your 16th birthday, you mean? Rawr!
Quote: zooo @ May 18 2008, 6:29 PM BSTP.S. Aaron!!! tut tut.
That's for us to say!
Yeah, no point beating around the bush though, is there?
(Perhaps not the best turn of phrase there...)
Quote: Aaron @ May 18 2008, 6:34 PM BSTand worked with some massive names.
Yeah, there was Little Richard, then Little Timmy, Little Tommy and Little Jimmy!
Perry that is illegal, but then it's illegal for both genders. So technically you're abusing each other.
n.b. when JK did his naughtiness. Homosexuality was illegal, and later there was an age of gay consent of 21.
So he was breaking 2 unjust laws (well they were repealed). And ended up a year or two the wrong side of the age of consent.
E.g. if the guys he'd shagged were 16 he'd be in the clear. There's some deeply perverse about that.
If the age of consent was dropped to 12, would he be allowing people out of jail as what they did was no longer a crime?
Quote: sootyj @ May 18 2008, 7:12 PM BSTn.b. when JK did his naughtiness. Homosexuality was illegal,
Are you sure?
Yup he's an old f**k. He was bumming away from when it was illegal, to the 21 age of consent, to today.
Read a fantastic interview with him in Bizarre.
n.b. Entertainment USA was ace.
Quote: sootyj @ May 18 2008, 7:12 PM BSTIf the age of consent was dropped to 12, would he be allowing people out of jail as what they did was no longer a crime?
Depends how the act to repeal and ammend the previous ones was worded.
Of course.
Quote: sootyj @ May 18 2008, 7:12 PM BSTE.g. if the guys he'd shagged were 16 he'd be in the clear. There's some deeply perverse about that.
If the age of consent was dropped to 12, would he be allowing people out of jail as what they did was no longer a crime?
well yeah, but that was my point. I was suggesting (in the first part) that part of the 'kick' was to break the law or make a statement but unnecessary as plenty of 16 year olds legally available. You're right it changes somewhat becos pre '16' statute.
But - where do we draw the line? The age of vulnerability and responsibility is impossible to define as far as I can see. Maybe, generally I would judge it based on school years but Ian W made the point that that can be extensive nowadays. We would have to go up to about 23 to be sure.
Well JK was 24 when Homosexuality was decriminalised. So he'd have been actively gay for some time (I think he said his first experience was 14).
Me I think I'd make the law more around vulnerability. e.g. if some one is under 16, you have to prove consent, and that they understood what it meant. But you could expand the concept to other vulnerable groups, who are at risk of exploitation.
It would also push the onus of responsibility more onto the perpetrator.
Quote: sootyj @ May 18 2008, 8:19 PM BSTMe I think I'd make the law more around vulnerability. e.g. if some one is under 16, you have to prove consent, and that they understood what it meant.
But you could expand the concept to other vulnerable groups, who are at risk of exploitation.
It would also push the onus of responsibility more onto the perpetrator.
Agree but how could it be workable: Would lead to endlessly argued court cases at great expense on all sides.
for the vulnerable groups - already effectively exists doesn't it?
Have to have an 'age' for the moment but no particular opinion on where it should be. 16 seems fair and at least at equity with others. Previous 21 also had additional qualifications.
No vulnerable only means the most vulenrable.
And as a care manager, I can tel you there's plenty of abusive, manipulative relationships there, of very, very vulnerable people.
Some would really shock you.
They shocked me.