10 August 2013

Alleged underage sexual assault

| johnboy
Join the conversation
65

A 20-year-old man will face court this morning (Saturday, August 10) over an alleged sexual assault of a child under the age of 16.

Police will allege the offence occurred in July this year.

The man attended the Woden Police Station yesterday (Friday, August 9), where he was interviewed by detectives from Criminal Investigations Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Team (SACAT).

He was arrested and taken to the ACT Watch House, where he was charged with one count of sexual intercourse with a young person.

The man will face the ACT Magistrates Court this morning.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

Join the conversation

65
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

JC said :

Spiral said :

JC said :

Aeek said :

JC said :

Actually the road laws are uniform around the country.

If you think that, then you don’t know the road rules. There are STILL differences.

Such as? Please give some examples.

Speed limits for L-Platers is probably the most obvious.

Does the varying hours from state to state for school zones count?

Are the Melbourne hook turns only a Vic rule, or a rule everywhere but just with no other state having them.

I thought two of those would be your responses.

Firstly with different limits for L and P platters, these lower limits are licence conditions not road rules, same too with limitations on power etc.

You do realise the L plater speed limits in NSW have only been limited to a licence condition for a month now? Before that every L plater from any state had to do 80kmph in NSW. When they updated the legislation to 90kmph, they (probably mistakenly copied from the P legislation) reworded it to state “if issued in NSW”. Even then the NSW RTA haven’t acknowledged the new legislation and still think all L platers should be doing the NSW limit.

BimboGeek said :

John that’s an excellent point and all the men involved are clearly disturbed.

The one in the story is particularly icky.

I recall one Humbert Humbert carrying on with his excuses “but she seduced me!” Yes she did and as her step father you should have walked away. But his insanity is what makes the story so compelling. Getting into the mind of a pedophile you see why they can only be who they are.

The law recognises that everyone is different. I remember girls having sex at 14/15 and just thinking “ew no thank you” but they really did seem happy with their decision. So of course it’s impossible to decide that a 15 year old with a 25 year old boyfriend is horrifying and then for it to all be super hunky dunky a few months later when she turns 16.

So once one has reached the age of consent then according to the law it’s nobody’s business other than the consenting individuals involved regardless of the age difference or any moral position others wish to express.

BimboGeek said :

John that’s an excellent point and all the men involved are clearly disturbed.

The one in the story is particularly icky.

I recall one Humbert Humbert carrying on with his excuses “but she seduced me!” Yes she did and as her step father you should have walked away. But his insanity is what makes the story so compelling. Getting into the mind of a pedophile you see why they can only be who they are.

The law recognises that everyone is different. I remember girls having sex at 14/15 and just thinking “ew no thank you” but they really did seem happy with their decision. So of course it’s impossible to decide that a 15 year old with a 25 year old boyfriend is horrifying and then for it to all be super hunky dunky a few months later when she turns 16.

It’s not “super hunky dunky” when she’s 16 either, it’s just legal. Like the difference between driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.05 and 0.049 – the cut off may be arbitrary, but you are pushing your luck at 0.049.

The question is not whether the girl had any regrets at age 15, but whether she will have any at age 18, 25, 35, 45 etc. In many cases they will.

IP

John that’s an excellent point and all the men involved are clearly disturbed.

The one in the story is particularly icky.

I recall one Humbert Humbert carrying on with his excuses “but she seduced me!” Yes she did and as her step father you should have walked away. But his insanity is what makes the story so compelling. Getting into the mind of a pedophile you see why they can only be who they are.

The law recognises that everyone is different. I remember girls having sex at 14/15 and just thinking “ew no thank you” but they really did seem happy with their decision. So of course it’s impossible to decide that a 15 year old with a 25 year old boyfriend is horrifying and then for it to all be super hunky dunky a few months later when she turns 16.

thebrownstreak69 said :

Young teens shouldn’t be having sex anyway.

Not before 18 and then only in the missionary position…

What seriously worries me is the number of people who have posted here thinking there are grey areas here, and sometimes its OK.

Jesus IP you have the wrong end of the stick! Of course they broke up well before she finished school. He was 25 and dating a 15 year old! He was obviously immature as hell and she was doomed to outgrow him very quickly. It worked for a little while and it was what she wanted for a little while.

I know of much creepier examples of girls around 14 running off with men around 40 and even then they are obviously prostituting themselves for cigarettes and alcohol as you say but if police take statements and everyone agrees they just had a mad Jenga tournament, what can they possibly do? BTW this was Victoria where at least at the time adults were permitted to supervise their kids’ introduction to alcohol and restaurants were permitted to serve wine with dinner to any age so alcohol access isn’t exactly a problem.

I like that this is being solved with grooming laws by the way. Some of this stuff really disturbed me at the time.

Heya BG, I think part of IP’s point is that as a man you’re nuts to put your entire life into the fickle hands of a 14 year old.

thebrownstreak699:05 am 13 Aug 13

Young teens shouldn’t be having sex anyway. Have a childhood, FFS.

JC said :

BimboGeek said :

But police are very good at telling the difference between an unconventional relationship that works and abuse. Smart kids who know what they are doing also know that they can go to Court and say, “But we didn’t have sex” and nobody can dispute it, so there’s no point prosecuting them.

I wonder if the same would still apply in this day and age? After all there are now laws about grooming, which might come into play with the situation you described above.

Whereas in Germany they are much more relaxed about the age difference:

as long as a person over the age of 21 does not exploit a 14–15 year-old person’s lack of capacity for sexual self-determination, in which case a conviction of an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense in and of itself. Otherwise the age of consent is 14, although provisions protecting minors against abuse apply until the age of 18 (under section Section 182 it is illegal to engage in sexual activity with a person under 18 “by taking advantage of an exploitative situation”

BimboGeek said :

But police are very good at telling the difference between an unconventional relationship that works and abuse. Smart kids who know what they are doing also know that they can go to Court and say, “But we didn’t have sex” and nobody can dispute it, so there’s no point prosecuting them.

I wonder if the same would still apply in this day and age? After all there are now laws about grooming, which might come into play with the situation you described above.

BimboGeek said :

When I was 15 we were the misfit group. Mostly because we were flavours of geekiness although one friend was just well rounded and really sensible for 15. She liked us because we didn’t go in for much of the petty social games other teenagers play. Her boyfriend was 25 and probably a little young for his age but it all worked out at the time because they complimented each other well.

Calling him a child abuser is a complete lie because there was no imbalance in their relationship and she was very deliberately dating outside her age group.

But police are very good at telling the difference between an unconventional relationship that works and abuse. Smart kids who know what they are doing also know that they can go to Court and say, “But we didn’t have sex” and nobody can dispute it, so there’s no point prosecuting them.

unless you have stayed in touch with both people for decades and are absolutely certain that both are now still health and well-adjusted, then you don’t really know. maybe when she stopped wearing school uniform he ditched her and found another schoolgirl. there was, by definition, a power imbalance – he had money, he could drive, buy alcohol and cigarettes.

maybe you are right and this couple are now happily married decades later, but if so they represent the exception not the rule. now, he would be tried, convicted and placed on the child sex offences register. in fact, if she made a historical complaint now, that still could happen. worth the risk boys?

In my experience police are unlikely to ignore a complaint such as the one you describe, so if the man and girl want to avoid him being convicted they may have to go as far as committing perjury in court.

IP

Ok back to the original article here, and to give some of you PERSPECTIVE:

2 things wrong with this story:
– incest
– a 12 year old is usually is either YEAR 6 or YEAR 7- over the last few years more and more parents are choosing to hold their children back, so let’s she’s in the LAST YEAR OF PRIMARY SCHOOL
– he is 20, assume he’s at uni, assume he’s gone from year 12 straight through..

A 3rd year uni student sleeping with a primary schooler???? We’re not talking about how mature or wild you were at the end of high school sleeping with someone a few years older than you.

Nice off topic arguments, but hey this guy in THIS situation needs to be locked up.

JC said :

Aeek said :

JC said :

Actually the road laws are uniform around the country.

If you think that, then you don’t know the road rules. There are STILL differences.

Such as? Please give some examples.

For one, cyclists share bus lanes in SA. Not sure why this is part of this thread.

JC said :

PS, yes the argument may well be pedantic, but as mentioned the road rules are common across the country, even if the actual ACTs of law are different in each state.

Except they DO have minor differences, which aren’t so minor if they impact you directly.

When I was 15 we were the misfit group. Mostly because we were flavours of geekiness although one friend was just well rounded and really sensible for 15. She liked us because we didn’t go in for much of the petty social games other teenagers play. Her boyfriend was 25 and probably a little young for his age but it all worked out at the time because they complimented each other well.

Calling him a child abuser is a complete lie because there was no imbalance in their relationship and she was very deliberately dating outside her age group.

But police are very good at telling the difference between an unconventional relationship that works and abuse. Smart kids who know what they are doing also know that they can go to Court and say, “But we didn’t have sex” and nobody can dispute it, so there’s no point prosecuting them.

PS, yes the argument may well be pedantic, but as mentioned the road rules are common across the country, even if the actual ACTs of law are different in each state.

IrishPete said :

JC said :

bundah said :

So while the Australian Road Rules provide rules to be followed by all road users they do not provide all the rules to be followed by road users eg drink driving which comes under a different law.

Correct, but those laws are not road rules. In the ACT the act that covers drink and drug driving is the “Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) ACT 1977”, but as mentioned these are separate from the actual road rules, along with the laws that cover penalties for breaking the road rules.

This seems like a rather pedantic argument about whether they are Road Rules or road rules. And it doesn’t have a lot to do with young men preying on even younger girls, so how about it you take it elsewhere folks?

IP

Last time I looked this was a discussion board. Now not sure what kind of boring discussions you have, but I know the discussion I have start with something, someone else mentions something else and the conversation deviates. May I suggest if you are not happy with the direction the conversation took you tune out?

I thought all the talk turned to cars and road rules because young people like to have sex in cars…

JC said :

bundah said :

So while the Australian Road Rules provide rules to be followed by all road users they do not provide all the rules to be followed by road users eg drink driving which comes under a different law.

Correct, but those laws are not road rules. In the ACT the act that covers drink and drug driving is the “Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) ACT 1977”, but as mentioned these are separate from the actual road rules, along with the laws that cover penalties for breaking the road rules.

This seems like a rather pedantic argument about whether they are Road Rules or road rules. And it doesn’t have a lot to do with young men preying on even younger girls, so how about it you take it elsewhere folks?

IP

bundah said :

So while the Australian Road Rules provide rules to be followed by all road users they do not provide all the rules to be followed by road users eg drink driving which comes under a different law.

Correct, but those laws are not road rules. In the ACT the act that covers drink and drug driving is the “Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) ACT 1977”, but as mentioned these are separate from the actual road rules, along with the laws that cover penalties for breaking the road rules.

KeenGolfer said :

JC said :

Spiral said :

JC said :

Aeek said :

JC said :

Actually the road laws are uniform around the country.

If you think that, then you don’t know the road rules. There are STILL differences.

Such as? Please give some examples.

Speed limits for L-Platers is probably the most obvious.

Does the varying hours from state to state for school zones count?

Are the Melbourne hook turns only a Vic rule, or a rule everywhere but just with no other state having them.

I thought two of those would be your responses.

Firstly with different limits for L and P platters, these lower limits are licence conditions not road rules, same too with limitations on power etc.

Times for school zones (and other variable speed zones), again not actually road rules, as what is important is what the limit is, how it is marked, not when said limit is enforced.

As for hook turns you may be surprised that they are indeed in the road rules of other states and territories including the ACT, though you will find nowhere you can perform a hook turn here. The reason for this is because there are national road rules.

Don’t believe me, well here is the link to the road rules that apply in the ACT. Check out page 26 that discusses hook turns.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/db_37271/default.asp

PS you will also find references to trams etc, again something we don’t have in the ACT (yet) but they are in our road rules.

Now where there CAN be a difference is when the national rules change and it takes the states time to make changes to their versions, as each state has their own version in legislation based on the national road rules. For example last year NSW made some changes to ‘their’ rules, but these changes just brought them up to date with the most recent national laws

Sorry JC, but you are wrong. Each state/territory modifies the base ARR to suit their own needs.

In the ACT it’s via the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000, which modifies a number of ARR’s for the ACT.

“The Australian Road Rules are not completely self-contained and need to be read with associated laws of each jurisdiction. Many of the rules provide for ‘another law of this jurisdiction’ to define terms used in the Australian Road Rules for application of the Australian Road Rules in the ACT, to permit things to be done in the ACT otherwise prohibited by the Australian Road Rules or to exempt persons in the ACT from complying with the Australian Road Rules. “

I think you may well be arguing a technicality there. As I mentioned above whilst each state does have their own laws every states laws are based on the national road rules. The reason why each state needs their own laws is because only that state can make laws for the state as opposed to the Federal Government.

But as I said each and every state has agreed to impediment the national road rules. The ONLY time where there is a difference is where the national rules change and states are slow in modifying their own laws to match, like NSW and their changes last year. Other than that there is no difference between the states in regards to the laws.

The penalties in relation to the laws yes, drink and drug driving laws yes, licence restrictions yes, but the road rules are common across all states even though they are legislated locally.

JC said :

bundah said :

Not to mention the differences in demerit points..

Penalties are not part of the road rules. Have a read of the rules I linked above and tell me if you can find any reference to points or penalties?

So while the Australian Road Rules provide rules to be followed by all road users they do not provide all the rules to be followed by road users eg drink driving which comes under a different law.

JC said :

Spiral said :

JC said :

Aeek said :

JC said :

Actually the road laws are uniform around the country.

If you think that, then you don’t know the road rules. There are STILL differences.

Such as? Please give some examples.

Speed limits for L-Platers is probably the most obvious.

Does the varying hours from state to state for school zones count?

Are the Melbourne hook turns only a Vic rule, or a rule everywhere but just with no other state having them.

I thought two of those would be your responses.

Firstly with different limits for L and P platters, these lower limits are licence conditions not road rules, same too with limitations on power etc.

Times for school zones (and other variable speed zones), again not actually road rules, as what is important is what the limit is, how it is marked, not when said limit is enforced.

As for hook turns you may be surprised that they are indeed in the road rules of other states and territories including the ACT, though you will find nowhere you can perform a hook turn here. The reason for this is because there are national road rules.

Don’t believe me, well here is the link to the road rules that apply in the ACT. Check out page 26 that discusses hook turns.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/db_37271/default.asp

PS you will also find references to trams etc, again something we don’t have in the ACT (yet) but they are in our road rules.

Now where there CAN be a difference is when the national rules change and it takes the states time to make changes to their versions, as each state has their own version in legislation based on the national road rules. For example last year NSW made some changes to ‘their’ rules, but these changes just brought them up to date with the most recent national laws

Sorry JC, but you are wrong. Each state/territory modifies the base ARR to suit their own needs.

In the ACT it’s via the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000, which modifies a number of ARR’s for the ACT.

“The Australian Road Rules are not completely self-contained and need to be read with associated laws of each jurisdiction. Many of the rules provide for ‘another law of this jurisdiction’ to define terms used in the Australian Road Rules for application of the Australian Road Rules in the ACT, to permit things to be done in the ACT otherwise prohibited by the Australian Road Rules or to exempt persons in the ACT from complying with the Australian Road Rules. “

bundah said :

Not to mention the differences in demerit points..

Penalties are not part of the road rules. Have a read of the rules I linked above and tell me if you can find any reference to points or penalties?

Grimm said :

IrishPete said :

By definition, if the person is under 16 they are unable to give consent, and the adult is entirely responsible. In some places it is called Statutory Rape, and for good reason.

Pretty sure by the age of 14 or 15, I could pretty clearly give consent and knew exactly what I was doing.

Not in the eyes of the law. And if you had broken the law at that age you would have been in Children’s Court – in the eyes of the law you were a child.

Here’s another really healthy adult-child relationship http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nsw/bikie-slit-missing-girls-throat-inquest-told-20130812-2rrlt.html

A 14 or 15, you couldn’t leave home, leave school, drive a car, get a credit card, etc. I am repeating myself but it still doesn’t seem to be sinking in. So as for your use of the term “retarded” as an insult, well I’m going to depart from my usual stance of playing the ball and not the wo/man, and suggest that says a lot about you and your attitudes.

IP

Spiral said :

JC said :

Aeek said :

JC said :

Actually the road laws are uniform around the country.

If you think that, then you don’t know the road rules. There are STILL differences.

Such as? Please give some examples.

Speed limits for L-Platers is probably the most obvious.

Does the varying hours from state to state for school zones count?

Are the Melbourne hook turns only a Vic rule, or a rule everywhere but just with no other state having them.

I thought two of those would be your responses.

Firstly with different limits for L and P platters, these lower limits are licence conditions not road rules, same too with limitations on power etc.

Times for school zones (and other variable speed zones), again not actually road rules, as what is important is what the limit is, how it is marked, not when said limit is enforced.

As for hook turns you may be surprised that they are indeed in the road rules of other states and territories including the ACT, though you will find nowhere you can perform a hook turn here. The reason for this is because there are national road rules.

Don’t believe me, well here is the link to the road rules that apply in the ACT. Check out page 26 that discusses hook turns.

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/db_37271/default.asp

PS you will also find references to trams etc, again something we don’t have in the ACT (yet) but they are in our road rules.

Now where there CAN be a difference is when the national rules change and it takes the states time to make changes to their versions, as each state has their own version in legislation based on the national road rules. For example last year NSW made some changes to ‘their’ rules, but these changes just brought them up to date with the most recent national laws

Affirmative Action Man said :

What is legal and what is morally defensible or reasonable are 2 totally different things.

The debate on these issues has changed dramatically in the last 10 years. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin, Loretta Lynn was married at 13 and Elvis was wooing his future wife when she was 13. Not so long ago Bill Wyman was in his 40’s & dating a 15 year old.

Is this slippery slope people talk about? If you stop people marrying their 13 year old cousins, and before you know it two blokes are getting married?

Blen_Carmichael3:52 pm 12 Aug 13

It’s not “rape rape” if the adult is an artiste…

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/sep/29/roman-polanski-whoopi-goldberg

Affirmative Action Man3:40 pm 12 Aug 13

What is legal and what is morally defensible or reasonable are 2 totally different things. The debate on these issues has changed dramatically in the last 10 years. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin, Loretta Lynn was married at 13 and Elvis was wooing his future wife when she was 13. Not so long ago Bill Wyman was in his 40’s & dating a 15 year old.

IrishPete said :

By definition, if the person is under 16 they are unable to give consent, and the adult is entirely responsible. In some places it is called Statutory Rape, and for good reason.

Pretty sure by the age of 14 or 15, I could pretty clearly give consent and knew exactly what I was doing.

Taking a retardedly simplistic view just to troll again are we?

There is a massive difference between the sensationalist cases used to promote that article and a 18/19 yr old lad getting it on with a 15 yr old lassie.

Watch out for that pendulum as it swings back, it’s likely to have a fair bit of speed up.

Stevian said :

Not at all, but circumstances make all the difference. Many 15 year old girls are sexually active and involved with older, often much older, men. It’s questionabl,e and on the part of the men involved moronically stupid, but since no coercion is involved it’s hardly a hanging offence.

No – anti-androgens will do: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/child-abusers-face-chemical-castration-as-part-of-plan-for-mandatory-minimum-sentences-for-paedophiles/story-fni0cx12-1226694828710

By definition, if the person is under 16 they are unable to give consent, and the adult is entirely responsible. In some places it is called Statutory Rape, and for good reason.

Proboscus said :

Stevian said :

Proboscus said :

Alderney said :

Is this a case of a 19/20 year old bloke getting it on with a 15 year old lass or is it alleged he forced her to do something she didn’t want to?

Could just be another example of the modern day witch-hunt. Burn him, burn him.

Did you just try and justify sex with a minor?

Seems more like an attempt to inject some common sense into the discussion. Not knowing the circumstances the situation as described could be questionable or reprehensible. The clarification by Bundah shows that it is the later. Now we can be outraged

I’d like to continue being outraged by the thought of a 20yo prick f***ing a girl under the age of 16, if you don’t mind?

Anyone thinking up possible defences for this POS should take a good, hard look at themselves, because you are condoning paedophilia.

Not at all, but circumstances make all the difference. Many 15 year old girls are sexually active and involved with older, often much older, men. It’s questionabl,e and on the part of the men involved moronically stupid, but since no coercion is involved it’s hardly a hanging offence.

Spiral said :

JC said :

Aeek said :

JC said :

Actually the road laws are uniform around the country.

If you think that, then you don’t know the road rules. There are STILL differences.

Such as? Please give some examples.

Speed limits for L-Platers is probably the most obvious.

Does the varying hours from state to state for school zones count?

Are the Melbourne hook turns only a Vic rule, or a rule everywhere but just with no other state having them.

Not to mention the differences in demerit points..

JC said :

Aeek said :

JC said :

Actually the road laws are uniform around the country.

If you think that, then you don’t know the road rules. There are STILL differences.

Such as? Please give some examples.

Speed limits for L-Platers is probably the most obvious.

Does the varying hours from state to state for school zones count?

Are the Melbourne hook turns only a Vic rule, or a rule everywhere but just with no other state having them.

Stevian said :

Proboscus said :

Alderney said :

Is this a case of a 19/20 year old bloke getting it on with a 15 year old lass or is it alleged he forced her to do something she didn’t want to?

Could just be another example of the modern day witch-hunt. Burn him, burn him.

Did you just try and justify sex with a minor?

Seems more like an attempt to inject some common sense into the discussion. Not knowing the circumstances the situation as described could be questionable or reprehensible. The clarification by Bundah shows that it is the later. Now we can be outraged

I’d like to continue being outraged by the thought of a 20yo prick f***ing a girl under the age of 16, if you don’t mind?

Anyone thinking up possible defences for this POS should take a good, hard look at themselves, because you are condoning paedophilia.

Aeek said :

JC said :

Actually the road laws are uniform around the country.

If you think that, then you don’t know the road rules. There are STILL differences.

Such as? Please give some examples.

Proboscus said :

Alderney said :

Is this a case of a 19/20 year old bloke getting it on with a 15 year old lass or is it alleged he forced her to do something she didn’t want to?

Could just be another example of the modern day witch-hunt. Burn him, burn him.

Did you just try and justify sex with a minor?

Seems more like an attempt to inject some common sense into the discussion. Not knowing the circumstances the situation as described could be questionable or reprehensible. The clarification by Bundah shows that it is the later. Now we can be outraged

I think it’s gross.

At the end if the day, their is emotional maturity to be taken into consideration as well as the vulnerability of the minor concerned. There is an over-abundance of girls with “daddy issues” (thanks for a generational legacy you have created, family court…) and I find it quite sad to see the number of messed up young girls out there.

The law is there for a bloody good reason. How it can be debated I’m sorry I don’t really understand, and I’m sure guys out there with daughters generally would agree.

Well what can one say about a 20 year old having sex with his 12 year old half sister apart from disgustingly wrong and he needs a stint in the slammer..

JC said :

Actually the road laws are uniform around the country.

If you think that, then you don’t know the road rules. There are STILL differences.

DrKoresh said :

IrishPete said :

Roundhead89 said :

I personally was sexually active at 13 and my attitude was that the law enacted by old men could go to buggery.

Now there’s a sentence just begging to be picked apart by a Psychoanalyst…

Were you also driving cars on public roads, drinking and smoking at 13? Did you get fake ID and vote? Should you be able to leave school at 13?

Just wondering.

IP

What’s the big deal here, IP?

I was 13 too, and nine years later it still hasn’t hurt anybody. I don’t see what sexual maturity has to do with driving, voting and getting an education. As long as no-one is being coerced or taken advantage of I don’t see what the problem is.

Because they are also laws enacted by old men. I was just wondering how many of them s/he thought they knew better than, at age 13.

Not knowing exactly what you or s/he got up to, I will reserve judgement on whether anyone was harmed. But if you were engaged in sexual activity with someone younger than you, say two years younger than you, then I can virtually guarantee that harm was done. If someone got pregnant in their early teens, then harm was done – if you didn’t stay in touch then you may note even know if they did.

So frankly it ain’t worth the risk and you should have stuck with Pamela.

IP

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd5:52 pm 11 Aug 13

fabforty said :

I personally was sexually active at 13 and my attitude was that the law enacted by old men could go to buggery.

Yes, but what we are talking about is sex when there is another person present.

Haha sick burn.

But really, why is nobody discussing the grossness of the actual thread?

I personally was sexually active at 13 and my attitude was that the law enacted by old men could go to buggery.

Yes, but what we are talking about is sex when there is another person present.

DrKoresh said :

Your cousin woulda been fine even if he was 16, because he was within 2 years of the young miss’ age. Her parents could stamp their feet and whine as much as they want, but your cousin would still be gold.

Actually no he wouldn’t have been. Whilst what you mention is most certainly the case in the ACT today, what I am talking about was 20 years ago and happened in NSW. Even today in NSW if the same thing were to occur (two 15 year olds going for it) both parties are committing an offence. As mentioned the coppers didn’t want charges to be laid in the circumstances so were using common sense, but not her parents.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/cfca/pubs/factsheets/a142090/

IrishPete said :

Roundhead89 said :

I personally was sexually active at 13 and my attitude was that the law enacted by old men could go to buggery.

Now there’s a sentence just begging to be picked apart by a Psychoanalyst…

Were you also driving cars on public roads, drinking and smoking at 13? Did you get fake ID and vote? Should you be able to leave school at 13?

Just wondering.

IP

What’s the big deal here, IP? I was 13 too, and nine years later it still hasn’t hurt anybody. I don’t see what sexual maturity has to do with driving, voting and getting an education. As long as no-one is being coerced or taken advantage of I don’t see what the problem is.

Roundhead89 said :

I personally was sexually active at 13 and my attitude was that the law enacted by old men could go to buggery.

Now there’s a sentence just begging to be picked apart by a Psychoanalyst…

Were you also driving cars on public roads, drinking and smoking at 13? Did you get fake ID and vote? Should you be able to leave school at 13?

Just wondering.

IP

Pork Hunt said :

bundah said :

The legal age for consensual sex varies across Australian state and territory jurisdictions.The age of consent is 16 years of age in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Victoria and Western Australia. In Tasmania and South Australia the age of consent is 17 years of age. Queensland is the only state that makes a distinction between different forms of sexual activity and the age of consent. In Queensland, the age of consent for anal sex (referred to as sodomy in legislation) is 18 years of age, while the age of consent for all other sexual behaviour (described as carnal knowledge) is 16 years of age.

Seriously isn’t it about time we got some uniformity with these type of laws instead of the nonsense where it varies from state to state?

Great idea Bundah, we can do that on the same day we get uniform road rules between the states and territories…

Absolutely 100% agree porker. Whenever I go interstate i’m forever reminding myself that anymore than 10 clicks over the limit and it’s 3 points whereas here it’s 15 clicks. We should have uniform laws for everything, bugger the states let’s have the same laws Australia wide!

Pork Hunt said :

bundah said :

The legal age for consensual sex varies across Australian state and territory jurisdictions.The age of consent is 16 years of age in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Victoria and Western Australia. In Tasmania and South Australia the age of consent is 17 years of age. Queensland is the only state that makes a distinction between different forms of sexual activity and the age of consent. In Queensland, the age of consent for anal sex (referred to as sodomy in legislation) is 18 years of age, while the age of consent for all other sexual behaviour (described as carnal knowledge) is 16 years of age.

Seriously isn’t it about time we got some uniformity with these type of laws instead of the nonsense where it varies from state to state?

Great idea Bundah, we can do that on the same day we get uniform road rules between the states and territories…

How can sodomy be a crime in a place named “Queensland”?

Pork Hunt said :

Great idea Bundah, we can do that on the same day we get uniform road rules between the states and territories…

Actually the road laws are uniform around the country.

JC said :

Proboscus said :

Did you just try and justify sex with a minor?

If the age difference isn’t too great then why not? I will give you an example of where the law can be an ass in this regards. Years ago my cousin got charged with sex with a minor after her parents came home and found them in the act. Her age 15, his age 15.

Suffice to say that the police quite sensibly didn’t want it to go any further due to the fact both were under-age, but her parents wanted to press charges. End result my cousin got charged, and because he was also under age the girl got counter charged with the same thing. It ended up in court and was thrown out within the first 5 minutes.

But lets say my cousin was 1 month older, and had turned 16 he would have got done and she wouldn’t have. So clearly right there is a case for where sex with an under age person is quite ok, the only issue though is what age difference is ok? My personal feeling is 2 years.

Your cousin woulda been fine even if he was 16, because he was within 2 years of the young miss’ age. Her parents could stamp their feet and whine as much as they want, but your cousin would still be gold.

bundah said :

The legal age for consensual sex varies across Australian state and territory jurisdictions.The age of consent is 16 years of age in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Victoria and Western Australia. In Tasmania and South Australia the age of consent is 17 years of age. Queensland is the only state that makes a distinction between different forms of sexual activity and the age of consent. In Queensland, the age of consent for anal sex (referred to as sodomy in legislation) is 18 years of age, while the age of consent for all other sexual behaviour (described as carnal knowledge) is 16 years of age.

Seriously isn’t it about time we got some uniformity with these type of laws instead of the nonsense where it varies from state to state?

Great idea Bundah, we can do that on the same day we get uniform road rules between the states and territories…

The legal age for consensual sex varies across Australian state and territory jurisdictions.The age of consent is 16 years of age in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Victoria and Western Australia. In Tasmania and South Australia the age of consent is 17 years of age. Queensland is the only state that makes a distinction between different forms of sexual activity and the age of consent. In Queensland, the age of consent for anal sex (referred to as sodomy in legislation) is 18 years of age, while the age of consent for all other sexual behaviour (described as carnal knowledge) is 16 years of age.

Seriously isn’t it about time we got some uniformity with these type of laws instead of the nonsense where it varies from state to state?

Proboscus said :

Did you just try and justify sex with a minor?

If the age difference isn’t too great then why not? I will give you an example of where the law can be an ass in this regards. Years ago my cousin got charged with sex with a minor after her parents came home and found them in the act. Her age 15, his age 15.

Suffice to say that the police quite sensibly didn’t want it to go any further due to the fact both were under-age, but her parents wanted to press charges. End result my cousin got charged, and because he was also under age the girl got counter charged with the same thing. It ended up in court and was thrown out within the first 5 minutes.

But lets say my cousin was 1 month older, and had turned 16 he would have got done and she wouldn’t have. So clearly right there is a case for where sex with an under age person is quite ok, the only issue though is what age difference is ok? My personal feeling is 2 years.

Masquara said :

Alderney said :

Is this a case of a 19/20 year old bloke getting it on with a 15 year old lass or is it alleged he forced her to do something she didn’t want to?

Could just be another example of the modern day witch-hunt. Burn him, burn him.

It is generally acknowledged that it’s more OK for young people of around similar age to be having underage sex, than an older person taking advantage of a still-child. I believe the courts have established that an age gap of around two years is the maximum acceptable to avoid too much of a power imbalance. Five years might be a small age gap for you, but of course a 20-year-old is much, much older to a 15-year-old kid. Please don’t inadvertently post in favour of child rape.

At last some commonsense debate on this issue rather than the knee-jerk “string ’em up” shock jockery. There needs to be some latitude regarding sexual assault/carnal knowledge laws. Two years ago in Texas a man who was 17 at the time was jailed for having a 15 year old girlfriend. Despite outrage around the world, the pedophilia laws were brought in and repeated attempts to get the charges dropped failed.

Perhaps we can have the Victorian system where there is a nominal age of consent for teenagers of 13 whereby anybody under the age of 16 can have sex with another teenager as long as there isn’t a gap of more than two years.

I personally was sexually active at 13 and my attitude was that the law enacted by old men could go to buggery.

Alderney said :

Is this a case of a 19/20 year old bloke getting it on with a 15 year old lass or is it alleged he forced her to do something she didn’t want to?

Just because you say “bloke” and “lass” doesn’t change the fact that it is a 20 year old adult and a 15 year old or younger child.

By the way, I hate the “alleged” in this police statement. It implies a certain amount of scepticism of the victim, a scepticism which is generally not used with non-sexual offences. When your house is broken into, do the police describe it as an alleged burglary? Or your car is stolen and it is alleged car theft?

The defendant’s right to not be described as guilty can easily be addressed by saying that they have been arrested for, or will be charged with, the offence, both of which phrases are distinct from “convicted of” and therefore do not imply guilt.

IP

Masquara said :

Alderney said :

Is this a case of a 19/20 year old bloke getting it on with a 15 year old lass or is it alleged he forced her to do something she didn’t want to?

Could just be another example of the modern day witch-hunt. Burn him, burn him.

It is generally acknowledged that it’s more OK for young people of around similar age to be having underage sex, than an older person taking advantage of a still-child. I believe the courts have established that an age gap of around two years is the maximum acceptable to avoid too much of a power imbalance. Five years might be a small age gap for you, but of course a 20-year-old is much, much older to a 15-year-old kid. Please don’t inadvertently post in favour of child rape.

He must have turned up on the wrong web forum. Google can so mislead you sometimes.

Frankly, if they law says it is wrong for a 16yo boy to have sex with a girl aged 15 and 364 days, or vice versa, then that should be enforced. Shops don’t sell cigarettes to kids aged 17y 364d, nor alcohol, nor do we íssue driving licences a few days or weeks or months early.

Or we should change the law to be more flexible for Romeo and Juliet, rather than rely on the charity of coppers, prosecutors and judicial officers.

IP

bundah said :

According to the crimes it is alleged that the 20 year old had had sex with his 12-year-old half-sister and that he has been released on bail and ordered not to contact the girl or her mother.

Well if that’s the case then it is totally unacceptable and I hope they throw the book at him.

Proboscus said :

Alderney said :

Is this a case of a 19/20 year old bloke getting it on with a 15 year old lass or is it alleged he forced her to do something she didn’t want to?

Could just be another example of the modern day witch-hunt. Burn him, burn him.

Did you just try and justify sex with a minor?

One only needs to trace their family tree back two or three generations to find relations getting married at 15, often because they are pregnant, and particularly in the bush. Five year age gaps were not uncommon.

Are you especially susceptible to propaganda?

Alderney said :

Is this a case of a 19/20 year old bloke getting it on with a 15 year old lass or is it alleged he forced her to do something she didn’t want to?

Could just be another example of the modern day witch-hunt. Burn him, burn him.

It is generally acknowledged that it’s more OK for young people of around similar age to be having underage sex, than an older person taking advantage of a still-child. I believe the courts have established that an age gap of around two years is the maximum acceptable to avoid too much of a power imbalance. Five years might be a small age gap for you, but of course a 20-year-old is much, much older to a 15-year-old kid. Please don’t inadvertently post in favour of child rape.

Alderney said :

Is this a case of a 19/20 year old bloke getting it on with a 15 year old lass or is it alleged he forced her to do something she didn’t want to?

Could just be another example of the modern day witch-hunt. Burn him, burn him.

Did you just try and justify sex with a minor?

According to the crimes it is alleged that the 20 year old had had sex with his 12-year-old half-sister and that he has been released on bail and ordered not to contact the girl or her mother.

Is this a case of a 19/20 year old bloke getting it on with a 15 year old lass or is it alleged he forced her to do something she didn’t want to?

Could just be another example of the modern day witch-hunt. Burn him, burn him.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.