AnnaKarpik
Queen of all she surveys
It's me too. I remember being 17.find it a bit weird when people go on about 17 yr olds as children, maybe that’s me.
It's me too. I remember being 17.find it a bit weird when people go on about 17 yr olds as children, maybe that’s me.
Have you been on the piss with Petcha?
Who is struggling to know where the boundaries are? Most people seem to manage, it's only really a certain type of sleazy older men who find the whole thing terribly confusing.To be fair, the child/adult distinction in this country is a bit fucked up - you can have a job, pay tax, and live away from 'home' at 16, but not vote until 18 - you can be married at 16 to another 16yo, and have children and a house with them, but if they send you an underwear shot from the dressing room at bravissimo you could be sent to prison for possessing sexual images of a child.
It's hardly conducive to everyone knowing where the boundaries are.
Not sure that's fair. There IS a grey area between 16 and 18.Who is struggling to know where the boundaries are? Most people seem to manage, it's only really a certain type of sleazy older men who find the whole thing terribly confusing.
Who is struggling to know where the boundaries are? Most people seem to manage, it's only really a certain type of sleazy older men who find the whole thing terribly confusing.
Maybe if you're 20 but not if you're 30.Not sure that's fair. There IS a grey area between 16 and 18.
17 yr olds now are that bit different to back in the 70s or 80s...even the early 90s. Wr grew up relatively free to roam and come home by 10.30. Or whatever.. many 17 yr olds now are growing up via phone apps. Are rarely off outdoors with their buddiesfind it a bit weird when people go on about 17 yr olds as children, maybe that’s me.
The only reason someone would pay for photos is if they are incriminating. Maybe the BBC person is also in the photos.As mentioned above, I think we need to wait and see what comes out here. Why would someone pay 35 grand for pics, when similar are available on the internet for free, and not illegal? According to The Sun, the mother complained to the BBC in May that this person was still paying the boy for pictures and he's 20 now. So this presenter continued to pay for pictures (and the boy continued to send them) after the parents and his employer had been made aware.
Hmmmmm ...
Bimble was talking about the possible confusion of a 17 year old not feeling that they are a "child".Maybe if you're 20 but not if you're 30.
Even when I was in school, if a 6th former starting dating a Year 9 they'd be called a paedo pretty quickly, even if he was lower 6th and she was older for her year. So actually, not having sexual contact with someone a lot younger than you/where there's a big imbalance in maturity/power is a pretty embedded cultural norm.
I can see the argument that in the 80s maybe every powerful older man was fucking a teenager and 16 year olds were legal and on page 3. But that really doesn't hold up anymore.
No one is really confused now about whether it is ok for older men to have sexual contact with teenagers.
This story, about some radio man (who i'm sure i wont know who it is even when the name is revealed)
As mentioned above, I think we need to wait and see what comes out here. Why would someone pay 35 grand for pics, when similar are available on the internet for free, and not illegal? According to The Sun, the mother complained to the BBC in May that this person was still paying the boy for pictures and he's 20 now. So this presenter continued to pay for pictures (and the boy continued to send them) after the parents and his employer had been made aware.
Hmmmmm ...
The star was pictured in his underwear "ready for my child to perform for him", their mother told the paper.
I don't know if this part of the story
answers your question, but it appears that the photos include both the young person and the BBC presenter, though whether together or separately is unclear.
so, if this story was in Scotland (where you point out that 16 = adult citizen in the law) you'd have no issue with it?Most kids when they get to 15 / 16 feel they are not children
The age of majority is 18 years in all EU Member States except for Scotland, where children are considered to have full legal capacity from the age of 16 years.
If a child becomes a parent or gets married before reaching the age of majority, in some Member States the child gains full legal capacity. In other Member States, married children will only gain partial legal capacity. For example, they are no longer subject to parental control and can act with regard to their personal needs, but may not be allowed to dispose of immovable property or borrow money. Some Member States also provide for a guardian for children who become parents.
In the UK this recommendation was accepted and on January 1, 1970, the age of majority was reduced from 21 to 18 years. (See Family Law Reform Act 1969, for England and Wales, the Age of Majority (Scotland) Act 1969, for Scotland, and the Age of Majority Act (NI) 1969, for Northern Ireland.)
So the 17 yr old had not reached the age of majority.
Feelings about 17 yr olds being more adult than not are actually irrelevant.
When I was 17 I probably felt more grown up than I have ever done. Dangerous age.ikwym - but me as a 17 yr old and my kids, one of each, as a 17 yr old(s) were three very different people. I was an adult. Boy was almost there. Lil'Angel isn't an adult yet.
I haven't read a lot of this thread but does it involve someone having an OnlyFans, or similar, when they shouldn't have, being under 18 I mean?
It's like a game of GuessWho innit.
Whoever it is, they have shown a remarkable lack of judgement.
It should have been obvious at least that they could have been open to blackmail, and also that it could have come out and their career be finished.
A remarkable lack of judgement.
It may come as a shock, but you do know Scotland as well as the rest of the UK left the EU a while back?Most kids when they get to 15 / 16 feel they are not children
The age of majority is 18 years in all EU Member States except for Scotland, where children are considered to have full legal capacity from the age of 16 years.
If a child becomes a parent or gets married before reaching the age of majority, in some Member States the child gains full legal capacity. In other Member States, married children will only gain partial legal capacity. For example, they are no longer subject to parental control and can act with regard to their personal needs, but may not be allowed to dispose of immovable property or borrow money. Some Member States also provide for a guardian for children who become parents.
In the UK this recommendation was accepted and on January 1, 1970, the age of majority was reduced from 21 to 18 years. (See Family Law Reform Act 1969, for England and Wales, the Age of Majority (Scotland) Act 1969, for Scotland, and the Age of Majority Act (NI) 1969, for Northern Ireland.)
So the 17 yr old had not reached the age of majority.
Feelings about 17 yr olds being more adult than not are actually irrelevant.
so, if this story was in Scotland (where you point out that 16 = adult citizen in the law) you'd have no issue with it?
If that's not the case - and i just assume it's not, because theres no suggestion that any crime has been committed here- can you explain how the legislation for age of majority is actually relevant?
There's the possibility of blackmail / coercion, especially if drug addiction is also involved.Elsewhere there's a suggestion that the relationship started on Only Fans. There'd be an expectation that anyone on there would be over 18, no? I mean there's then the question of how and why it continued once it was clear the person was 17 but if true, it does make it slightly less grim for me. Still sleazy and grim obs.
The SNP dropped the age of majority prior to the independence referendum to try and benefit from the naivety of children. It didn't work, they still lost.so, if this story was in Scotland (where you point out that 16 = adult citizen in the law) you'd have no issue with it?
If that's not the case - and i just assume it's not, because theres no suggestion that any crime has been committed here- can you explain how the legislation for age of majority is actually relevant?
In that scenario do we know that it continued after it was known they were 17? Did they know they were 17 when it started? Sleazy as fuck, but shouldn't jump to conclusions about the legality. If it turns out there was nothing illegal in what they did dies the BBC as employer have any duty or rights to intervene?Elsewhere there's a suggestion that the relationship started on Only Fans. There'd be an expectation that anyone on there would be over 18, no? I mean there's then the question of how and why it continued once it was clear the person was 17 but if true, it does make it slightly less grim for me. Still sleazy and grim obs.
But old enough to be enlisted in the army.i just learned that the marriage age in the uk changed just a couple of months ago (from 16 up to 18). How did i miss that. This does make sense to me, as in its more coherent - if you're too young to have an only fans account you're too young to say i do.