Rolf Harris

[planetretro]

Could ebay please remove all the listings selling art work etc done by the convicted pedofile.

[rose2008-2008]

I think myself sex wise anyone over eighteen having sex with an under eighteen should be classed as a Paedophile.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@rose2008-2008 wrote:

I think myself sex wise anyone over eighteen having sex with an under eighteen should be classed as a Paedophile.

---

So would you like to see the age of consent raised to 18?

[rose2008-2008]

I was actually going to say YES,,, and i know that you become an adult in this country when your eighteen. Thats why i really cannot understand why the age of consent for sex is sixteen!!. Strange really. In a lot of ways its too young.

[squonktown]

Someone who is sexually attracted to children, ie Rolf Harris

[saasher2012]

Now this is where there is confusion if as we are led to believe he was grooming this woman from an earlier age does that make him, a child molester or a Paedo. ?

[lambsy_uk]

---

@rose2008-2008 wrote:

I was actually going to say YES,,, and i know that you become an adult in this country when your eighteen. Thats why i really cannot understand why the age of consent for sex is sixteen!!. Strange really. In a lot of ways its too young.

---

Yes you have point! This is how things can all become confusing, we say that our children remain with the status of minors until they are 18, but they are old enough to consent to sex at 16. So we have a load of minors having sex and perhaps having sex with adults.

I know when it comes to my children 25 won't be old enough in my eyes!

[lambsy_uk]

---

saasher2012 wrote:
Now this is where there is confusion if as we are led to believe he was grooming this woman from an earlier age does that make him, a child molester or a Paedo. ?

---

To call him a paedo the girl would have had to be prepubescent, so would this depend upon at what age she showed signs of pubity?

[lambsy_uk]

Is Squonktown a place full of bubbles and tears?

[saasher2012]

No I don't think so because everyone is different like everything else the law gives a certain age for specific crimes otherwise confusion arises.

[rose2008-2008]

Ahhhh i never thought you would say you agreed Lambsy. LOL thought you were going to catch me out there. Yes i think it causes confusion,, different ages. It sounds silly when you say oh their not adults until their eighteen but they can do a very adult thing at sixteen and have SEX!!!!!!!!!!. Bit Ridiculous really.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@saasher2012 wrote:
No I don't think so because everyone is different like everything else the law gives a certain age for specific crimes otherwise confusion arises.

---

Yes it is ideal to set an age in order to legislate, however paedophilia is not a crime so if we are deciding if someone is a paedophile or a child molester we cannot just base it on an age prescribed in law.

[lambsy_uk]

---

@rose2008-2008 wrote:

Ahhhh i never thought you would say you agreed Lambsy. LOL thought you were going to catch me out there. Yes i think it causes confusion,, different ages. It sounds silly when you say oh their not adults until their eighteen but they can do a very adult thing at sixteen and have SEX!!!!!!!!!!. Bit Ridiculous really.

---

Yes, especially as sex ultimately leads to procreation and the whole point in reaching the age of majority is that you become responsible for yourself and those in your charge. How can a minor be responsible for another minor?!

[j_uk643]

 Bit disingenuous

The paedophile definition/usage isn't universally agreed, and common usage would define Harris as such

If he acted on his impulses, it would be illegal

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@lambsy_uk wrote:

---

@rose2008-2008 wrote:

I was actually going to say YES,,, and i know that you become an adult in this country when your eighteen. Thats why i really cannot understand why the age of consent for sex is sixteen!!. Strange really. In a lot of ways its too young.

---

Yes you have point! This is how things can all become confusing, we say that our children remain with the status of minors until they are 18, but they are old enough to consent to sex at 16. So we have a load of minors having sex and perhaps having sex with adults.

I know when it comes to my children 25 won't be old enough in my eyes!

---

Lambsy

I don't think "we have a load of minors having sex and perhaps having sex with adults" because the age of consent is 16.

At 16 a person can start full time work, they can get married, they can leave home, they can buy beer, cider or wine with a meal in a pub or restaurant, they can give consent for their own medical, dental and surgical treatment, join the armed forces etc etc

It is probably best to describe a 16 year old as a young adult, and treat them as such, rather than call them a child.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@j_uk643 wrote:

If he acted on his impulses, it would be illegal

---

As yet ... impulses are not illegal. 

[cee-dee]

What you do "on impulse" can be illegal though.

[evoman3957]

Isn't that what self control is all about, modifying what impulses we act upon and what ones we don't. Going out and buying a £1000 handbag, on an impulse, maybe somewhat foolhardy; especially if you can't really afford it. However, killing somebody, or sexually assaulting a child, on the spur of the moment .......ie. "on impulse" indicates the person has no sef control and is therefore an imminent danger to other people. Usually they like to call "Impulse"........"Temporary Insanity", when it's bad enough to have put them on trial for their actions.

[evoman3957]

sef..............should be self.........see, no self control.......Bl**dy finger types what it likes; not what it's told to type.

[**bustysinclaire**]

Well then, the confusion over the age of consent and all other regarding sex, IMHO is a good reason why God's principals should be adhered to. They are always for mankinds benefit. Follow them and we would be free from so many of the problems created by following your impulses (or however you would like to describe it).

[saasher2012]

I make no comment except to say perhaps some of the so called god principles should be adhered to by those who are preaching them, I refer of course to the JW elder who has just been found guilty of the very crimes he was preaching about!