More crazy legislation from Britain.....

[fjolnirsson]

Law bans holding hands, smooching under age 16

by Elizabeth Heathcote and Andrew Johnson, The Independent [London, UK]

April 25, 2004

Teenagers who risk a furtive kiss could be breaking the law under a new sexual offences act that comes into effect this week.

The legislation is meant to target pedophiles, but campaigners say it will take Britain back to the mores of the Fifties by criminalizing all sexual behavior among under-16s.

The Sexual Offences Act, which becomes law on 1 May, outlaws "sexual touching" with anyone below the age of consent. Touching is defined as "all physical contact, including touching with any part of the body ... through anything, for example, through clothing".


For the entire article:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=514997

I'm just glad CA had nothing like this when I was a kid. I'd still be in jail...

They say it won't be prosecuted against minor relationships, but they are going to" leave that up to prosecutors"?
Comments?

 

[crewchief]

So let me get this straight they have officially killed puppy love.

 

[Moparmike]

Hear that giant sucking sound off the east coast? Its the sanity of the British government going down the toilet. Must be deafening in France, save for their own special blend of sucking sounds...

What's next? Being charged with kitten killing too?

 

[jamz]

Ahh, the kittens finally make their appearance on THR.

-james

 

[agricola]

er...

this simply confirms a presumption (in the Sexual Offences Act 1956) that a person under 16 cannot consent to something that would negate that thing from being an indecent assault.

 

[fjolnirsson]

Agricola,

Ok. But did you see this thread?:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74316
England isn't the only one with crazy laws..

For further discussion in the same general area.
How do we make a minor relationship a crime?
As I understand the article, holding hands would be a big no-no for two 25(25? I meant 15) year olds.
How is it that two people comitting an act together can be mutual victims, simply because they aren't the correct age?

 

[agricola]

fjolnirson,

you understand incorrectly. Basically, as the law stands pretty much any activity (short of the more extreme sadomasochism such as branding) between two consenting adults in private above the age of 16 is legal (which removes your two 25 year olds point).

the law (as the 1956 law was) was designed to criminalize those above the age of consent from engaging in sexual acts from below the age of consent. When the age of the two is close, there is almost always no conviction; when the age gap is wider, charges can be brought (as is right btw). When both are under 16 then they are both victims, and so no prosecution is brought.

 

[Art Eatman]

agricola, your comment, "When both are under 16 then they are both victims, and so no prosecution is brought." should be sufficient explanation.

The problem in the U.S. is that some prosecutors in some places will happily prosecute, because some like-minded blue-nose will complain. We have that limited few, unfortunately. (Consider our "zero tolerance" rules in schools where even drawing pictures of guns means a kid is in trouble with the authorities.) IMO, this "mindset thing" is too often abused via what I see as a misuse of law.

The result is a high degree of suspicion of "do good" laws...

Art

 

[HankB]

When both are under 16 then they are both victims, and so no prosecution is brought.

Hmmm . . . it seems that there might be some opportunities here for bright consenting 15 year olds to work the system . . . does Britain perchance have some "victim compensation" policies, or are crime victims afforded some special considerations, in school or elsewhere?

 

[dischord]

When both are under 16 then they are both victims, and so no prosecution is brought.

And to think that I've never considered myself the co-victim of those middle school make-out sessions 23-ish years ago. I suppose I should seek counciling now that I'm aware of my victimhood.

 

[thefitzvh]

This just in:

The parliament has signed into law a bill that criminalizes everything.

Preparations for the incarceration of the entire nation are under way.

If you have any questions, please cuff yourself to your bed and call 9-11.


James

 

[HBK]

I never felt vicitimized either...guess I'm just too thick skinned. Now that I think about it, I remember feeling kinda lucky...usually.

 

[The_Antibubba]

Moparmike

You owe me a new keyboard-and a lung to replace the one I just coughed up!!!!!!

OOOOOH!! My ribs hurt.

Please provide a link to the "kitten".

Excuse me, but I've got to go apologize to my neighbors for the noise.

 

[another okie]

"When both are under 16 then they are both victims, and so no prosecution is brought."-------------------------------------------------

Yes, both are victims. But both are also perpetrators. Notice agricola says "no prosecution is brought,", not "no prosecution may be brought." Most age of consent laws in this country specify that those over the age may not do certain things with those under the age, which makes it plain that if both are under the age there is no offense. Under the law cited there is indeed an offense, and Brits are depending on the prosecutor's discretion not to file. It is easy to imagine, however, an overeager parent wanting to "send a message" to their child (or to someone else's) and pressuring the prosecutor.

 

[agricola]

er..

No.

As the article noted, the CPS has made it very clear that there will be no prosecutions even of those 18-15 year old relationships, never mind those under the age of consent.

In addition, there is (though this is changing) a different system here than that you envisage - the prosecutor (CPS) does not lay charges (used to be solely Police, now its the Police with CPS advice), he or she only deals with the pre-trial and trial procedures.

You also assume that the CPS has the time or inclination to criminalize every teenager in the country, which is clearly ludicrous except to those obsessed with Orwellism.

 

[another okie]

agricola says: "As the article noted, the CPS has made it very clear that there will be no prosecutions even of those 18-15 year old relationships, never mind those under the age of consent. "

"Will be" is different than "can't be." If you can't see the difference, then I'm wasting my time discussing the point. Government promises are worth nothing.

 

[P95Carry]

except to those obsessed with Orwellism

Obsessed?? Nope .... just observant and aware. The ''Owellism'' in much of the Western world appears alive and well.

It's sometimes known also as ''nanny state''. Deprivation and erotion of freedoms is another way to look at it.

Gotta say ... that ''Anti-Social Behavior Act'' over there is the one biggie that really takes the cookie. (And I am an EX Pat).

 

[agricola]

another okie,

yes, alright, the state is trying to turn the teenage youth of the UK into monks and nuns by the back door.

 

[Joe Demko]

the state is trying to turn the teenage youth of the UK into monks and nuns by the back door.

Wouldn't that fall under the sodomy statutes?

 

[fslflint]

what are you guys argueing about? don't you all know that the UK is paradise on earth? they have all but banned guns, thus there are no shootings, this new law will completly eradicate rape and sexual assault. because as you know, they were not illegal already. I hear that they are going to ban all rocks and other objects with the required sectional density. of course this will, in effect, empty parlement because all political figure will have to turn in their very hard heads!!!