age limitations

[friday]

you can't leave school at 15. you have to leave after gcses (i was nearly 17) and you are then able to work full time (although minimum wage is different for under 18s, possibly because they don't pay council tax?)

male homosexual sex used to be illegal for under 18s but is now 16 as for heterosexual couples.

fg-not sure what the police officer was on about regarding under 31 year olds and under 16s. the age of consent does not depend on anyone elses age although they may be less likely to prosecute if one is 15 and the other is 16 due to whether it is "in the interest of the public to prosecute".

[friday]

and marriage is still legal for 16 year olds if they have their parents consent but otherwise it is still 18.

[frankgallagherwasere]

It certainly would be easier if the age of 18 was the acknowledged cross over point from child to young adult and 21 being a full blown adult. That way parents could be held accountable and responsible till 18. I think many of us know all too well its their their parents behind many accusations - either to protect defend or expoit the law on so called vulnerability.

Many of the cases of under 18s had the participants consent but it was a parent whom made the complaint - against sometimes the express wishes of their child. As we all know its almost impossible to control the emotions and relationships our children have, and its normal for girls especially to have older boyfriends - making them an easy target.

So a girl breaks the law enters a pub pulls an older lad and bang he is in court for underage sex??? who broke the law first then? could one class this as disception??? and Im sure the girl wouldn't get convicted of anything.

Then you get the couple who get married at 16 and she accuses him when there 17 and he gets caught out by the 18 rule - yes its common amoungst youngsters inside and often the problems were created by the girls not the boys - but boys are more likely to try and sort things out amoungst themselves the girls run to mummy who then runs to the police - her daughter being the one who never does anything wrong........b*ll)Cks

The fact one is immature is a phrase, its applicable to many adults too and I dont buy into it. Far from it, there actions are often imature, liars cheats and thieves. Again not applicable - that could apply to anyone of any age and sex - just girls are most commonly the shoplifters whilst boys the robbers and thieves, they can all do it just in a different way.

Some kids in my 5th years at Grammar School did leave at the Easter before end of year and were only 15, was it legal? WHo knows and to be honest I dont really care. mY son was forced to leave school at 15 cos of what the others did to our family.

Any any one under the age of 18 is not only vulnerable - there dangerous too cos the law will always side on their side in these cases, no matter what they do wrong.

[friday]

fg-as much as i respect your opinion you do not back it up with examples or facts. i know a number of 18 year olds who were punished appropriately for their crimes (in youth offending institutes). these may be less severe than adult prisons but they were first or second time offenders so the idea is to reform them by putting them in places which give them skills and the chance of a new life, rather than just punish them.

you give the example of a couple who married at 16 and then talk of this '18 rule'. what is this rule? if they were married at 16 then they are entitled to have sex just as every other 16 year old is. the law only shows a different opinion of 16-17 year olds if they are having a relationship with someone in authority such as a teacher. if you can find the law that defines this '18 rule' i would be very interested to hear it because that would mean my case should have been based around it, negating the need to prove i didnt consent.

[Rights Fighter]

friday - you have let loose a whole bag of spanners on springs by continuing to discuss this with FG!

You'll get the usual response banging on about the government, Crown, Defence, police etc etc etc with repetition and hardly any of it will make logical sense!

[frankgallagherwasere]

Good morning Friday, since its not raining for a change and the sun looks like it might shine for atleast a few mins.

I met a number of lads who had transefered from the YO section to main on reaching the age of 21 who had been convicted or rape or serious assault whilst married and both under the age of 18. MY arguement was that their case was treated like all under 18s where the female got full state potection including not having to appear in person in court. Not only that due to their accuser being under 18 they have to suffer all the extra license and supervision orders due to this.

However the most significant disadvantage is whilst in prison, they are then hit by the underage act where permission is required for all access visits letters and telephone calls. For those who dont understand this, bacisally they cant see anyone under 18 other than close authorised family - and getting that authorisation is required EVERYTIME they got transferred to another prison at Hull thats a 6 months wait. On release the same applies they are not allowed to supervise under 18 !! this includes significant issues with potentially a girlfriend with a family - he cant stay there and could even breach their license by simply having the relationship - some have been recalled for this very reason. They have to seek permission before even a relationship starts have to tell her potential partner their history(from the start) basically their lives ruined !!! I could go on but we all know the score.

We are on about false accusations here and nothing else, and what happens to the victims of these liars fraudsters and cheats. What life have these youngsters got ahead of them when they cant insure their house, insure a cars and their watched every second of their lives, JUST cos some accuser got upset. I know some have made mistakes, some did something wrong BUT no one is perfect especially when their young - as with accusers and accused neither are sometimes perfect examples of hunman beings - but the damage accusations do to people is beyond belief, and especially when false well Im sure you can answer that one for yourself.

[frankgallagherwasere]

Haha RF

No she wont I didnt even mention any of them once in my response !!!

[Rights Fighter]

On purpose to make your point but you will do so very soon as you can't help yourself!!

[frankgallagherwasere]

No RF you couldn't be more wrong. However as your not in my position then I don't expect you to understand, nor would I expect you to say anything different either !! Lets say we understand each other and leave it at that shall we - mutual respect even if we don't always agree or see eye to eye.

Dont you think a few hundred people marching down the town centre of the Home Office Minister would get noticed? Maybe like CND we should start a camp outside their constituents house? Then we would see just how hell bent this state is on keeping a lid on their own corruption rather than admitting its intent. As we all know there was 13 Politicians who defrauded the state - that for normal people would have been a criminal offence - so who are the criminals as there was proof not just hearsay evidence (often with other evidence to contradict it) against them.

People on these boards should have every right to talk about discuss and moan about the very people who put us here. Yes its repetitive, thats cos every week someone else gets banged up using the same collusion that put us here in the first place. Many cases wouldnt even get to charges and court if the Police and CPS had done their job properly and Solicitors questioned their motives and methods, how can someone be charged for something when their is actual evidence and proof that its inaccurate - cos by the time it gets to court legal aid defence will have helped them hide it !!

RF I really seriously dont want an arguement never mind a slagging match with you, so please lets just not try and provoke one shall we.

[Rights Fighter]

People on these boards should have every right to talk about discuss and moan about the very people who put us here. Yes its repetitive, thats cos every week someone else gets banged up using the same collusion that put us here in the first place.

Not many other members on this forum repeat themselves in the same way that you do time after time. It really does get wearing.

[friday]

under 18s still have to appear in court (i know from experience) unless the accused pleads guilty (correct me if that last bit is incorrect?)

whilst it does seem rediculous that a married couple would be unable to continue their relationship outside of prison due to condiitions of licence etc, i suspect it is probably not a common situation (18yr old husband in prison, 16 yr old wife outside) and i guess the prison service probably think its best for the young partner to create an identity for his/herself besides being the boy/girlfriend of a prisoner. 16 seems very young to be visiting your boyfriend in prison, and to just be caught up in criminal lifestyle.

of course this doesnt take into account those who are innocent and whose young partners are choosing to stay with them through their prison sentence, this group should not be discouraged from visiting. however in order for them not to be discouraged the prison service would have to admit they werent guilty...

[friday]

im just trying to keep to the topic of age limitations. not sure how successful my attempts are. i may just give in and finish my tub of vegan ice cream and have a fag. both of which i am legally old enough to buy (dont get me started on them changing age limits on fags...)

[frankgallagherwasere]

Im up for keeping things on topic !!

No under 18 dont have to appear in court, only over a video link when you dont see who is with them or what is goin on around them, there certinaly not put on the spot in front of the jury for all to see !!! choreographed or what ever - crown have full control over how their clients are presented in court.

Over a video link a 16/17 yr old can look like 13 !! erm isnt that what they want them to look like

[friday]

its not automatic you get a video link if you are 16/17. even as someone who is classified a vulnerable (long history of mental health problems) i was not offered video link until they believed i actually wouldnt be able to give evidence unless it was done that way. and then i was adviced not to as seeing the victim means the jury have to see them in 3D and cannot almost imagine them to be a character (as in they seem more real).

the law on showing video evidence also changed recently. previously it was only under 16 who were allowed to use it but then there was a pilot scheme using it for all victims of serious sexual assault/rape. of course i was in the weak between the pilot scheme ending and the law being past....meaning they had to contact the minstry of justice....it could only happen to me, i swear. and of course his barrister didnt want it to be allowed because he knew if it wasnt used i would not go through with the trial (less than 10 minutes in he had reduced me to a wreck and had to be told off by the judge)

[frankgallagherwasere]

For anyone who has been through what I have, what gets one worked up most is the inconsistencies between trials and cases. I know this is influenced sometimes by the facilities of a specific court room, but then I guess that to the crowns advantage - get somewhere that offers them the most advantage?

Ive known my fair share of women who were abused physically and mentally and I also know they never really get over it, maybe put it to one side, but it really never goes away - my wife being one of them. So if anyone ever thought I would do anything to harm anyone - there dont understand what these crimes do to people - or in truth THEY DON'T CARE. If people knew the damage it does and cared, Im sure any reasonable human being wouldnt even consider it.

However its all too easy to accuse anyone of anything, you just say it, whats not right is the judicial who would appear to be so inconsistent in their approach - their job isnt rocket science after all. In business one doesn't just do any job one does one that they have experience in and some knowledge of atleast if one is a professional. I find it almost impossible to comprehend how any lawyer can do any case, without knowing their responsibilities to perform it proficiently?

I think any reasonable doctor could diagnose a true accuser from a whinger i dont mean physical I mean mental as its harder to manipulate and could bring other reasons into view?? Too often the judicial doesnt do anything like enough to qualify the case just to justify and both are a world apart in my eyes. A court case is almost like an English literature exam that tests words and not a science exam thats actually tests the evidence. Therefore a trial is like some arts class and not science???? Law is supposed to be a science isnt it?