Does anyone have figures for people in prison for consensual sex with similarly aged but underage partners?

Both those statements are saying the same thing.

The Crown - (Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Office) the people in Scotland who decide which laws to prosecute.

I have linked the legislation already.

Why are you harbouring on about this same point? What more do you want me to say? That perhaps I have some 'inside' knowledge on these matters.

I don't like the myth that it is ok to have sex with underage girls because the police won't do anything anyway. It should be common knowledge that it is illegal to have sex with anyone under the age of 16 and that it can result in prosecution.

I also don't like the myth that no matter what you report to the police the liklihood is they won't care and will only provide a poor service. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could testify that their own experience was a poor one, however believing it to be the norm is only damaging and the main cause for women and girls not reporting crimes ( I am of course now referring to all sexual crimes). There are bad examples in every workforce, I have met bad nurses, bad teachers, bad GP's etc but it doesn't mean that I think they are all bad and not to be trusted and avoided. This myth must be destroyed and women and girls should feel free and able to report crimes to the police and know that they WILL be believed.

I too have repeatedly stated my reasons behind what I'm saying.

I'll try and be as clear as possible.

Even though the legislation states that a boy and girl under 16 could both be charged, it is the decision of the Crown office that the girl would not be convicted of such an offence as it would not be in the public's best interest.

The law exists but it is not enforced. Do you understand the difference?

However, boys could (although highly unlikely) be prosecuted. This is the decision of the Crown office.

What would more likely happen is that both parties wouldn't tell their parents, if they did their parents probably wouldn't alert the police, and if they did, the police would only under pressure of parents to press charges, and if that were the case then both boy and girl would be charged. It would in all likelyhood at that point be dropped from the prosecution office and referrals made to Child Services. If, this entire situation were to repeat itself with say perhaps the same boy and a different girl all the way through telling parents, reporting to police, etc then only then would the Prosecution service consider maybe taking actual proceedings against the boy. It is a big if. Have I made this clearer?

Just because the law exists it does not automatically mean that the Prosecution Service have decided that it is in the public's interests to enforce it.

I do not hold sexist views, it is the opinion of the Crown Office who uphold the best interests of the public.

Could you imagine the outrage of the public if underage girls were being prosecuted for having sex. Don't you think that girls and women have a difficult enough time in the eyes of the public with regards their sexual pursuits without starting to convict them for consensual sex. Can you see why this would NOT benefit the interests of the public.

It would not be in the interests of the public to prosecute a girl for underage sex.

It 'might' be in certain circumstances (although highly unlikely) in the interests of the public to prosecute a boy for having underage sex with a girl.

Do you see it now?

"No YOU HAVE BEEN POSTING RANDOM INCORRECT STUFF ABOUT THE LAW"

Why do you keep saying this? I have copy and pasted it several times, I even then gave you the link ???? Why is it random incorrect stuff? Do you disagree with the legislation or something, I have no idea why you find it easier to insult me than to acknowledge that the 'stuff' I have posted IS a direct lift from the legislation.

YOU said you were talking about the laws of the UK? I thought to myself, well I know a lot about this and there are inaccuracies being thrown about I shall post the actual facts!!! I was not aware that this discussion was only open for people wishing to talk about English law. You failed to mention that condition.

Are you aware that Scotland is a country in the Uk and it does have laws also, and that maybe people of that country would like to join in on an internet forum debate without being shouted down for not talking about English law and being accused of making up random incorrect stuff about the law.

Where did you say that it was only a discussion on the laws of England?

I am in Scotland.

I have always been referring to Scottish Law, which by the way is not random incorrect stuff. I am not inaccurate in what I have said and I have a very good understanding of the law, thank you very much. Can you show me where you think this is the case?

I am not irate, it is you who said you were irate, typing with CAPS LOCK on and calling me a goldfish or something.

Not once, did you say English Law or the law of England. You did mention the act of 2003, which I suppose everyone else not in the privileged position of being English or residing in England should automatically know what you are talking about, but the same rules don't apply when I'm referring to the law of my home country. Can't you see the irony of your position in this thread.

I have repeatedly stated my position on what is legal and what isn't. I do not and never have disagreed with any poster on this thread when it has been said that it is unusual for a 17y boy to be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 y girl. That is the point I am making. Can't you see that we are in agreeance here.

The law could not be created with a discrimination against a 15 y boy and not a 15 y girl when it comes to who would be charged. However, what I am saying is that this scenario would never occur, I have never heard of it happening, just because there is a law there stating that it does not automatically mean that it is in the interests of the public to enforce that law. Do you now understand what I mean?

What a bizarre thread. Great perseverance, SQ.

From the Sentencing Guidelines (NB for England & Wales

"in addition, it is not in the public interest to prosecute children who are of the same or similar age and understanding that engage in sexual activity, where the activity is truly consensual for both parties and there are no aggravating features, such as coercion or corruption. In such cases, protection will normally be best achieved by providing education for the children and young people and providing them and their families with access to advisory and counselling services. This is the intention of Parliament."

SQ
Not once in this thread did you say that refer only to English law. You mentioned the law of the UK???

It was only when I linked the Scotland law that you jumped on this.

Is it just an assumption that we've all to make that any discussion, unless otherwise stated, is relevant to England and only England, and the remainder of the UK can be ignored.

Oh, you mention CPS but don't know what its equivalent is called in Scotland, well that's ok then, as long as the rest of us non-English UK citizens understand what you are talking about, you don't need to know about what's relevant to us. Talk about the privileged !!!

My theory is that we are costantly being fed certain myths and some people, through no fault of teir own other than perhaps an unwillingness/inability to look a little deeper, absorb them and believe them and therefore have strong feelings of injustice about the subject - ie, many youn men being criminalised due to laws that mean females have at their fingertips the opportunity to have an innocent boy/man jailed on a whim (maliciousness?).

Then they get involved in conversations where the facts, the Actual facts and statistics, entirely undermine what they have previously been led to believe but the feelings are stll there, the feeling that decent men and boys are in danger from these laws (and malicious girls/women who rely on them), so this leads to grasing at straws because they feel so strongly about it all.

But if the foundations are ripped away from under what you believe, try looking at why you believed they were solid foundations in the first pkace...get angry about that instead of desperately trying to prop up your feelings with yet more shifting sands.

SQ
I have no idea now what point you are making. You have jumped about on this thread all over the place and have decided to mix my words, misinterpret what I have said and try and shout me down.

Perhaps it is best not to try and educate you in the law and leave you believing that having sex with underage girls is acceptable and that (if reported) to the police will do nothing.

My first copy and paste (as stated above in 13:37) is an excerpt from the same legislation that I have been talking about all the way through. The reason why I mentioned it was because SQ kept posting that it was the policy of the police to not do anything when a girl of under 16 and a boy of 16+ have sex. I wanted to point out that it is in fact illegal and that it is now becoming common knowledge that it is ok to have sex with girls under 16 when in fact it is against the law. I have copied it again for you.

Having intercourse with an older child
If a person (?A?), who has attained the age of 16 years, with A?s penis, penetrates to any extent, either intending to do so or reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of a child (?B?), who?
(a) has attained the age of 13 years, but
(b) has not attained the age of 16 years,
then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of having intercourse with an older child.

It appeared that SQ couldn't imagine this from ever happening and I agree that it is extremely unusual. However the law is there and it is there for the protection of girls (mainly) because they have the higher risks of such sexual encounters.

I don't know how this makes me annoying !!!