Shah - underage girls are 'out to have a good time'

[poachedeggs]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/10/eddy-shah-operation-yewtree-sexual-abuse

If by a 'grown up discussion' we mean adjust the age of consent and how it is applied then I'd suggest the 'discussion' would be of the type suited to some male 'grown ups'.

Whilst I see more sexualised behaviour in terms of language, risks and dress from young girls more and more, I dont see any more increased ability amongst that group to grasp the emotional/physical significance to handle that, that contributes to their well-being, in fact the opposite as they on ocassion (seen in dd's friends of that age) think that it is in some way 'empowering', when the power is being in effect handed over to males who would exploit them.

Sex below 16 is already illegal. My change would simply do away with the provision to make it illegal but acceptable in certain circumstances as the case is at the moment. That is a problematic fudge as we can see. If you want children to have sex all you need to do is lower the age of consent and if you don't want them to you not only enforce the age of consent but steer miscreants into some other constructive activity. Most children who aren't out there humping are actually doing useful things like homework, horse riding, sport, drama and playing an instrument.

Sex in adulthood doesn't to include love or affection, simply attraction

Here's what I would like to say to Mr Shah and everyone like him.

"You appear to be a man who has enjoyed a very privileged position in the UK as someone with influence and wealth. You are surely intelligent enough to see that this gives you power. With power comes the responsibility not to abuse that power.

It was extremely disappointing to see from the media, of which you have of course been a key player in past years, that you have sadly become corrupted by that power. Indeed, I find it even more distressing that you continue to abuse that power by using the media to again condemn young girls as being complicit in their abuse.

I admit that I will never understand the forces at work in the mind of a man who uses prostitutes. For the sake of an orgasm, you abused 2 woman, the woman you paid to treat as an empty vessel for you to ejaculate in and your wife who deserved so much better. You may have been found not guilty of raping that young girl but there seems to be no understanding by you that she should not have been put in that position in the first place.

Equally heinously you continue to abuse your power even today by using your media clout to make the appalling assertions that you have. Young girls do not ask to be abused. Women do not get rape raped.

You could have acknowledged that your behaviour was wrong, you could have apologised to the women that you did abuse. You could have stated that you were sorry that you allowed such a situation to arise. You could have taken the opportunity to make a stand.

Instead of owning your shame - the one that comes from the world discovering that you abuse your wife with the use of prostitutes, the shame that comes from the world discovering that you think you are entitled to pay women for access to their bodies, the shame that should have come from allowing a young girl to be put in that position.

But yet you continue to shame yourself. You continue to perpetuate rape myths. You disrespect each and every woman and girl who has ever been raped. You disrespect every man decent enough to know that women and girls are not commodities.

How truly tragic to not take this opportunity to become a better person. How truly sad for an ageing and elderly man to have to deny who he really is.

We know what you are, Mr Shah. No amount of bluster detracts from the fact that you are a rape apologist, a misogynist, an inadequate man who feels entitled to pay for sex.

If any man uses your statements to justify the abuse of young girls then you are also guilty. You may believe that the best form of defence is to attack and by doing so you have done more harm that you will ever know. You have reinforced rape culture. You have condemned the next generation of young girls. You have perpetuated rape myths.

Please retract your comments but more importantly, please educate yourself on why your comments were wrong."

oh columngollum, I'm not sure how more judgemental that post could come across!

The 'problematic fudge' isn't anything like that - it's a recognition that differing circs require a differing approach to achieve the optimum outcome for all concerned.

I don't believe the law ought to be a "different strokes for different folks" compendium. I believe it ought to be a set of rules which you either abide by or get punished. I believe that the former approach simply leads to muddle.

Laws and prosecutions are always applied to individual circs - this one isn't any different in that regard. I'm just finding your yes/no approach as unfair, not relevant and ultimately unworkable.

So you would imprison two 14 year olds who had sexual contact, maybe touching each others genitals over underwear, for the same length of time as you would a 50 year old man who touched and encouraged a 14 year old boy to touch him in this way?

That seems right to you?

Interesting.

Examples that I gave earlier were drink driving and carrying a knife, where the law is clear and so too are the punishments. They work. My own belief is that people do far better if they know what the rules are and what they are not. A rule which isn't a rule under certain circumstances is a bodge.

This is entirely off the point though.

Point is that many/most of these accusations of historic abuse involve abuse, not consensual activity. And with children of a wide range of ages.

Got to wonder about the columnists and commentators who are pretending that all the accusations involve teens near the age of consent who were enthusiastically consenting.

So you would imprison 2 14 year olds who engaged in "heavy petting" for a period of some years.

Well OK then.

Suffice to say your approach is highly unusual and you would be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people who agreed with you.

Well, nicetabard, I think you're writing my law yourself and then disagreeing with your own definitions! I haven't defined the prison sentences for having sex with hedgehogs either. Perhaps you'd like to disagree with that too.

tbf, the laws around knife possession and drink drive are also applied carefully to fit the circs. But yes, your notions of legislation and their application is unusual and, again, not thought out, if you don't mind me saying.

So what is your law? How do you want to do it?

At the moment the full range of sexual contact is illegal with anyone under 16 under certain circs. And sometimes with people over 16.

How are you going to deal with it all?

Could someone point me to the legal definition of the full range of sexual contact, please. That strikes me as mistaken phraseology.

I'd offer anything under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which amalgamated just about all of the previous acts.

But it would be good to get back to Mr Shah. He is a media publicist and so he courts air time. I think it's good he was allowed it, to prod further his and others attitudes which would be simpatico with Jimmy Saville for instance, and show how wrong he is.

A kiss may either be sexual contact or an act of endearment. Parents have to touch their children's genitals in order to clean them. I don't see how the full range of sexual contact could be defined or policed. Intent on the other hand is an entirely different matter and the law is good at defining intent. Sexual intercourse of course has a definition and that would be proscribed below sixteen in all cases.

You don't think it is illegal for an adult to engage in any form of sexual activity with a child? At the moment?

You think the law relates only to penetrative sex?

What do you think the law is at the moment?

Sexual offences act 2003 applies in england and wales, there is other relevant legislation as well which someone like Pan might be better placed to point you at.

Cleaning your children's genitals or kissing them as an endearment is not sexual contact.

Of course you know that.

I mean, for crying out loud.

I think these dirty old men are just bloody scared that their crimes and those of their friends might catch them up and they are trying to create a backlash in the wake of the realisation by many people who previously didn't know, that men sexually exploiting and abusing women and girls, is much more common than they previously perceived.

It just never occurred to them that what they were doing was wrong because it never occurred to them that these girls are people. They are now stunned to find that other people believe these now-women are people and so find what they did to them disgusting and therefore might hold them accountable.

They're trying to head it off.

That bellweather of misogynist reaction, Brendan O'Neill, was on the radio the other day doing similar - telling Caroline Criada Perez that there is no such thing as misogyny (because he, a white middle class man, knows more about that than she does. I expect he tells black people there's no such thing as racism anymore as well, the dick).

These rape apologists take every opportunity they can, to make sure that society's nasty secret - the widespread sexual abuse of girls and women by men - is kept quiet.

Nooo! I'd like us to get out of this cul-de-sac.

Nowhere have I stated that I believe it legal for an adult to do that. What I have said on several occasions is that it is illegal for anyone to have sex under 16 but that provisions have been made to make it acceptable (but still illegal) under certain circumstances. There are lots of other things that I haven't said too like elephants are pink and water solid. Would you like to list everything I haven't said by way of argument?

Am boggled at the comparison of a parent kissing a 5yo on the cheek to a stranger coercing a 13yo boy into snogging them.

This is a wind up, isn't it.