Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
Can Anyone Possibly Agree With This Woman?
46 Answers
http://
Should the legal age of consent be lowered to 13, so as to fit in with her beliefs?
/// Ms Hewson, a barrister at Hardwicke chambers in London, described the crimes committed by disgraced broadcaster Stuart Hall as 'low level misdemeanours' which would not normally be prosecuted. ///
/// Ms Hewson is regularly ranked as a Leading Junior by The Legal 500 in the fields of public and administrative law, human rights and civil liberties, and professional discipline and regulatory law, according to her chambers’
website. ///
/// She has won cases in the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court and High Court of the Republic of Ireland. ///
Should the legal age of consent be lowered to 13, so as to fit in with her beliefs?
/// Ms Hewson, a barrister at Hardwicke chambers in London, described the crimes committed by disgraced broadcaster Stuart Hall as 'low level misdemeanours' which would not normally be prosecuted. ///
/// Ms Hewson is regularly ranked as a Leading Junior by The Legal 500 in the fields of public and administrative law, human rights and civil liberties, and professional discipline and regulatory law, according to her chambers’
website. ///
/// She has won cases in the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court and High Court of the Republic of Ireland. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is what she wrote, without the Mail's 'cherry-picking'....
http://
http://
Rape should be followed up, whatever, whoever and whenever.
However i have a certain sympathy with the views of Ms Hewson
\\\Ms Hewson argues that 'touching a 17-year-old’s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one’s hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt' are not comparable to cases such as the Ealing Vicarage rape or Fordingbridge gang rape and murders from 1986.\\\
e.g sqad aged 30 years of age, "touches a young girl's breast" in a car....would it be in the public's interest to bring a charge against sqad 40 years later?
I think not.......in my opinion.
However i have a certain sympathy with the views of Ms Hewson
\\\Ms Hewson argues that 'touching a 17-year-old’s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one’s hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt' are not comparable to cases such as the Ealing Vicarage rape or Fordingbridge gang rape and murders from 1986.\\\
e.g sqad aged 30 years of age, "touches a young girl's breast" in a car....would it be in the public's interest to bring a charge against sqad 40 years later?
I think not.......in my opinion.
I would have thought that lowering the age of consent to 13 was a paedophile's charter. The very idea is ludicrous. I couldn't give a tinkers cuss if she has won cases in every court on the planet...she is completely bonkers about this.
Who amongst us that has a 13 son or daughter would seriously want them to be interfered with by an adult ?
I too, am uneasy about the current media obsession with hounding old men, although if they are guilty, than the law should deal with them in the appropriate manner. I am very unhappy about the naming of these people until they have been found guilty...the media these days can destroy a person with one paragraph on the front page. I expect there are dozens of people arrested in Britain for sexual assaults every week that we don't get to hear about, just because the media deems them not to be celebrities and therefore, not interesting enough to sell newspapers.
But lowering the age of consent is plain wrong and this highly-educated woman should know better. Shame on her.
Who amongst us that has a 13 son or daughter would seriously want them to be interfered with by an adult ?
I too, am uneasy about the current media obsession with hounding old men, although if they are guilty, than the law should deal with them in the appropriate manner. I am very unhappy about the naming of these people until they have been found guilty...the media these days can destroy a person with one paragraph on the front page. I expect there are dozens of people arrested in Britain for sexual assaults every week that we don't get to hear about, just because the media deems them not to be celebrities and therefore, not interesting enough to sell newspapers.
But lowering the age of consent is plain wrong and this highly-educated woman should know better. Shame on her.
There seems though to be a subtext that in some sense if you are touched in an unwanted way then maybe it's something you should have dealt with better:
"It’s interesting that two complainants who waived anonymity have told how they rebuffed Hall’s advances. That is, they dealt with it at the time."
This seems to me to mean that those on the receiving end of unwanted physical contact and didn't "deal with it" are somehow at fault for that. Which in turn casually overlooks that the man who touched her so could always have asked properly before doing so.
In the highly unlikely event that any woman started touching me without asking I don't see that it's suddenly my fault if for whatever reason I'm not able to brush her off. Moreover relative physical strength, or underlying confidence issues, can come into it. If it so happens that the man touching the woman is also stronger than her she may not be able to brush him off; and if she's suffering from a lack of confidence then she may not even feel able to deal with it at the time.
Either way that sentence smacks of saying to victims of unwanted sexual contact, "Oh, just grow up deal with it will you?" rather than addressing the men concerned and tell them to start respecting people more and asking. Sheesh, it's not difficult.
"It’s interesting that two complainants who waived anonymity have told how they rebuffed Hall’s advances. That is, they dealt with it at the time."
This seems to me to mean that those on the receiving end of unwanted physical contact and didn't "deal with it" are somehow at fault for that. Which in turn casually overlooks that the man who touched her so could always have asked properly before doing so.
In the highly unlikely event that any woman started touching me without asking I don't see that it's suddenly my fault if for whatever reason I'm not able to brush her off. Moreover relative physical strength, or underlying confidence issues, can come into it. If it so happens that the man touching the woman is also stronger than her she may not be able to brush him off; and if she's suffering from a lack of confidence then she may not even feel able to deal with it at the time.
Either way that sentence smacks of saying to victims of unwanted sexual contact, "Oh, just grow up deal with it will you?" rather than addressing the men concerned and tell them to start respecting people more and asking. Sheesh, it's not difficult.
One thing the DM article does mess up is naming people like Rolf Harris and DLT who have not, as far as I know, been charged with underage offences anyway. That is pretty poor.
Is the age of consent relevant in these cases anyway? Surely if you molest someone sexually without their consent it is objectionable no matter their age. Even if there is a case for lowering it, is it relevant to these cases? The trouble is we the general public don't really know what actually happened, so it is very difficult for anyone to comment authoritatively.
Is the age of consent relevant in these cases anyway? Surely if you molest someone sexually without their consent it is objectionable no matter their age. Even if there is a case for lowering it, is it relevant to these cases? The trouble is we the general public don't really know what actually happened, so it is very difficult for anyone to comment authoritatively.
jackthehat
/// But at least it is possible to agree/disagree with what she actually wrote, rather than the DMs selective high-lighting. ///
But much rather take the opportunity to have yet another dig at the Daily Mail eh?
Incidentally don't all newspapers edit long passages of speech, so as to fit their newsworthiness?
/// But at least it is possible to agree/disagree with what she actually wrote, rather than the DMs selective high-lighting. ///
But much rather take the opportunity to have yet another dig at the Daily Mail eh?
Incidentally don't all newspapers edit long passages of speech, so as to fit their newsworthiness?
I'm sorry to say AOG that I think she makes some valid points. The subject of historical claims of sexual abuse must be fraught with many unseen pitfalls. For example, some things that were acceptable 40 years ago are no longer deemed to be socially acceptable and vice versa.
If these differences are not taken into account then surely the accused is not being treated fairly.
Please note that I am not referring to any particular case and of course I am in no way condoning any form of exploitation of children.
If these differences are not taken into account then surely the accused is not being treated fairly.
Please note that I am not referring to any particular case and of course I am in no way condoning any form of exploitation of children.
"Ms Hewson argues that 'touching a 17-year-old’s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one’s hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt' are not comparable to cases such as the Ealing Vicarage rape or Fordingbridge gang rape and murders from 1986."
That statement is true, but measuring the perceived seriousness of one crime against another does not in any way minimise the impact of the perceived 'lesser crime'.
Murdering ten people does not equate with the Holocaust, but it does not follow that the murder of the ten is less serious simply because it one rpresents a numerical fraction of the other.
That logic is deeply flawed, and should not be used in a serious argument - especially coming from a legal practicioner.
This woman is so busy trying to argue the finer points of law, that she has lost the essence of what the law is there for - to protect the innocent and vulnerable, and give them recourse to justice.
That statement is true, but measuring the perceived seriousness of one crime against another does not in any way minimise the impact of the perceived 'lesser crime'.
Murdering ten people does not equate with the Holocaust, but it does not follow that the murder of the ten is less serious simply because it one rpresents a numerical fraction of the other.
That logic is deeply flawed, and should not be used in a serious argument - especially coming from a legal practicioner.
This woman is so busy trying to argue the finer points of law, that she has lost the essence of what the law is there for - to protect the innocent and vulnerable, and give them recourse to justice.
"'Instead, we should focus on arming today’s youngsters with the savoir-faire and social skills to avoid drifting into compromising situations, and prosecute modern crime.'."
Only a lawyer could come up with a phrase like that!
the sort of youngsters who are vulnerable to abuse are the sort of youngsters who have difficulty writing their own names. They grow up in an atmosphere of anger, verbal and physical violence, and are prone to respond to anyone who shows them signs of the love and affection that they so badly lack, and crave - however sinister the motives behind such actins may be.
And for the record Ms Hwson, these children are about as likely to be familiar with the concept of 'savoir faire' as they are with a society that ewven listens to them - much less cares too much about what happens to them.
Come into the real world, it's not wonderful but it beats the hell out of the PG Wodehouse plot you are currently inhabiting Ms Hewson.
Only a lawyer could come up with a phrase like that!
the sort of youngsters who are vulnerable to abuse are the sort of youngsters who have difficulty writing their own names. They grow up in an atmosphere of anger, verbal and physical violence, and are prone to respond to anyone who shows them signs of the love and affection that they so badly lack, and crave - however sinister the motives behind such actins may be.
And for the record Ms Hwson, these children are about as likely to be familiar with the concept of 'savoir faire' as they are with a society that ewven listens to them - much less cares too much about what happens to them.
Come into the real world, it's not wonderful but it beats the hell out of the PG Wodehouse plot you are currently inhabiting Ms Hewson.
Andy - So what you're saying is 'touching a 17-year-old’s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one’s hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt' is comparable to "cases such as the Ealing Vicarage rape or Fordingbridge gang rape and murders from 1986."
I think the argument she's making is not that one is wrong or right but that they are both being treated identically by the police and press and in the course of it jeapordising the chances of a fair hearing in court for the "accused"/
I think the argument she's making is not that one is wrong or right but that they are both being treated identically by the police and press and in the course of it jeapordising the chances of a fair hearing in court for the "accused"/
Latest Posts
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Body & Soul23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
ChatterBank49 mins ago
