Reference:
Blimey Karma, stop posting reasonable thinking.
Exactly, it has no place in this thread 
Reference:
Blimey Karma, stop posting reasonable thinking
I know clinically I really shouldn't be able to yet, I will try not to for the forseeable future
The law makes a distinction between sexual activity with children under 13, and sexual activity with someone 13 or over but under 16. The former is obviously sexual activity with a child as it is at or below pubescence and there is no defence.
When the victim is 13 or over, but under 16, no offence is committed if the victim consents and the defendant believes, on reasonable grounds, that the child is at least 16. In Sisqo's case, meeting in an adult nightclub sounds like reasonable grounds to me.
Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the UK. Pretty obvious, really. To the reasonable.
When the victim is 13 or over, but under 16, no offence is committed if the victim consents and the defendant believes, on reasonable grounds, that the child is at least 16. In Sisqo's case, meeting in an adult nightclub sounds like reasonable grounds to me.
Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the UK. Pretty obvious, really. To the reasonable.
Reference:
Exactly, it has no place in this thread
Reference:
I believe that British Law states that someone over 16 who has sex with someone under 16 is statutory rape.....if someone reports them for doing 'it'
That maybe the law but I strongly disagree with the 'rape' term and also that in alot of cases, underage girls (and lads) will lie about their age. If that is the case, why should anyone be charged with anything, let alone rape? I just think it's so wrong that the perpetrator in a court of law is actually the perpetrator who lied about their age in the first place. Very difficult thing to prove I know, but I still think it's wrong that all the blame automatically lies on the adult.
Reference:
The law makes a distinction between sexual activity with children under 13, and sexual activity with someone 13 or over but under 16. The former is obviously sexual activity with a child as it is at or below pubescence and there is no defence. When the victim is 13 or over, but under 16, no offence is committed if the victim consents and the defendant believes, on reasonable grounds, that the child is at least 16. In Sisqo's case, meeting in an adult nightclub sounds like reasonable grounds to me. Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the UK. Pretty obvious, really. To the reasonable.
Yay! At LAST! (I like Danjay cos he always produces the facts to back this stuff up) Thank you
Pssssst Karma, I always swoon a little at Danjays posts, but don't tell him. 
I do too Cinds, but I won't say anything if you wont 
*walks by, oblivious*
Reference:
*walks by, oblivious*
PHWOAAAAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *shrieks and runs to hide*
DJ ur such a tart
Reference:
I believe that British Law states that someone over 16 who has sex with someone under 16 is statutory rape
Kaytee, it's under 13, not 16 for the victim and no age specification re the offender