16 months for having a "full-blown sexual relationship" with a 15-year-old

Dis86 said:
Well yes it is...it becomes a legal concept when the law defines what a child is.

Padeophile - Noun - a person who is sexually attracted to children.

Child - Noun - a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

Ta da.

Game over man, it's game over!
Click to expand...

No, you’re still mixing up the dictionary and the law. There is no such thing as a “paedophile” under the law.

Google “Sexual Offences Act 2003”. There is an offence of sex with a child, sex with a child under 13 (a real paedophile) and abuse of a position of trust but nowhere is the term paedophile used.

Game over.
 
NewGamer11 said:
No, you’re still mixing up the dictionary and the law. There is no such thing as a “paedophile” under the law.

Google “Sexual Offences Act 2003”. There is an offence of sex with a child, sex with a child under 13 (a real paedophile) and abuse of a position of trust but nowhere is the term paedophile used.

Game over.
Click to expand...

Are you mentally retarded? They're both dictionary definitions. The dictionary literally says the word legal. It's right there. You even quoted it. You then make up some crap in your quote when you quote the actual law! (Real paedophile). Lol.
 
Dis86 said:
Are you mentally retarded? They're both dictionary definitions. The dictionary literally says the word legal. It's right there. You even quoted it. You then make up some crap in your quote when you quote the actual law! (Real paedophile). Lol.
Click to expand...

Yeeeees, the dictionary and the law are two different things.

I’m not responding anymore. I expect the thread will be like locked anyway.

The main thing is we agree she abused her position and should have gotten a harsher penalty.
 
NewGamer11 said:
Yeeeees, the dictionary and the law are two different things.

I’m not responding anymore. I expect the thread will be like locked anyway.

The main thing is we agree she abused her position and should have gotten a harsher penalty.
Click to expand...

When the dictionary refers to the law they are not two different things.
 
Dis86 said:
Well yes it is...it becomes a legal concept when the law defines what a child is.

Padeophile - Noun - a person who is sexually attracted to children.

Child - Noun - a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

Ta da.

Game over man, it's game over!
Click to expand...
Paedophilia is not legally defined. Sexual activity with a child is legally defined. The two are not equivalent.

I also think you were on shaky ground earlier when you said that having sex with someone implies you are attracted to them. I don't think the two are always correlated. I'm sure plenty of rapes are committed regardless of attraction.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Paedophilia is not legally defined. Sexual activity with a child is legally defined. The two are not equivalent.

I also think you were on shaky ground earlier when you said that having sex with someone implies you are attracted to them. I don't think the two are always correlated. I'm sure plenty of rapes are committed regardless of attraction.
Click to expand...

Yes, but a child is defined both linguistically and legally! In the case of linguistically it points to it also being a legal definition. I literally quoted the dictionary and you're still squirming. The dictionary is telling us that a child is whatever the law says a child is and in this country that is someone below the age of 16 where sexual activity is concerned.

A paedophile is defined as a person sexually attracted to children. Ergo someone sexually attracted to someone below the age of 16. This boy was 15. The woman was sexually attracted to him. Therefore she is by definition a paedophile.
 
I wonder how much this has gone on without anyone knowing about it, you just know there's some teachers out there who've slept with a load of their pupils and never been caught. There's food for thought.
 
Dis86 said:
Yes, but a child is defined both linguistically and legally! In the case of linguistically it points to it also being a legal definition. I literally quoted the dictionary and you're still squirming. The dictionary is telling us that a child is whatever the law says a child is and in this country that is someone below the age of 16 where sexual activity is concerned.

A paedophile is defined as a person sexually attracted to children. Ergo someone sexually attracted to someone below the age of 16. This boy was 15. The woman was sexually attracted to him. Therefore she is by definition a paedophile.
Click to expand...
But you're relying on a legal definition of one thing to bolster a dictionary definition of another thing, and that's not how language works. When you think of a "child" you're unlikely to think of a 15 year old.

Besides, the law in question actually concerns sexual activity (touching, where that touching is sexual) with someone under the age of 18, not 16. Would someone convicted of this offence with someone aged 17 be a paedophile? No, obviously not.

As an aside, that's also why the issue of consent is irrelevant. Consent doesn't factor into an offence of sexual activity of this kind.
 
Roar87 said:
I wonder how much this has gone on without anyone knowing about it, you just know there's some teachers out there who've slept with a load of their pupils and never been caught. There's food for thought.
Click to expand...

There probably isn't. Boys boast. Girls tell secrets. It will almost always get found out.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Paedophilia is not legally defined. Sexual activity with a child is legally defined. The two are not equivalent.

I also think you were on shaky ground earlier when you said that having sex with someone implies you are attracted to them. I don't think the two are always correlated. I'm sure plenty of rapes are committed regardless of attraction.
Click to expand...

Awww cmon, who ***** fatties?
 
Vonhelmet said:
But you're relying on a legal definition of one thing to bolster a dictionary definition of another thing, and that's not how language works. When you think of a "child" you're unlikely to think of a 15 year old.

Besides, the law in question actually concerns sexual activity (touching, where that touching is sexual) with someone under the age of 18, not 16. Would someone convicted of this offence with someone aged 17 be a paedophile? No, obviously not.

As an aside, that's also why the issue of consent is irrelevant. Consent doesn't factor into an offence of sexual activity of this kind.
Click to expand...

It's there in the dictionary. You've quoted it several times. I'm not rely8ng on it. It's in black and white.
 
Acme said:
There probably isn't. Boys boast. Girls tell secrets. It will almost always get found out.
Click to expand...

Boys keep secrets when it means they get to keep hitting it. Girls keep secrets when they're in love with their science teacher.

(for reference I am not a teacher)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom