'He broke the law' isn't an argument. We know that. Oscar Wilde broke the law, slaves who ran away broke the law. The only relevant aspect is whether those laws are moral or not.
He didn't violate a position of trust at all.
I don't actually think it was any more or less appropriate in his case than a boss and employee relationship. Might not be wise, but assuming both consent and are able to consent, it's fine.
The ONLY issue here is whether she was able to consent. We know she said she did, and we know she still says she did. It is therefore up to you to prove that she was not able to.
Other countries have different age limits, so not arbitrary limits being cited are acceptable as an argument. You have to prove to me why it is not possible, beyond doubt (because a man's life hangs in the balance) that she had no capacity to consent at all. You haven't done this, any of you, you've used emotive language and anecdotal irrelevancies about what you think all children, as if they were one entity, are capable of.
I'm cool with him losing his job, that's fine. That his life is now ruined is barbaric.
Emily, as with everything, depends on the girl. I was capable of consenting at 14, so I am fully aware it is possible. The law is on my side on this of course, as children younger than that can be tried as adults (see the James Bulger trial for instance). So given we know this, and the law already accepts this, the only question is, could this particular girl consent rationally? I would have this in a grey area of consent, and so it would still be innocent until proven guilty. i.e it's fine unless it's proved she wasn't able to consent
hobbes? Hobsian?
