Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 3:09 PM
> In message <005d01c6115f$02f258c0$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie > osynthesis.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>just got this from the Home Office in response to my October criticism of
>>the New Website. Amelie
>
> Unless they'd subcontracted the job to EDS, I'd say their non-reply was
> a load of stercus taurorem. Other pages on their site are even worse,
> such as the 'consultation exercise' started by Barmy Blunkett,
> ironically entitled "Paying the Price".
>
> I'll quote the twaddle of their reply in full, then quote some of the
> source code for the page on the prostitution 'consultation exercise',
> the results of which seem not (yet) to have been published despite the
> latest irrational attempts by the Home Office to 'crack down' on
> prostitution. That 'consultation exercise' ended on 26 November 2004,
> so they should have found enough time to have collated the responses by
> now, shouldn't they?
>
> If you look at the 'consultation document', you'll find it every bit as
> one-sided and biased as that to which the Gormless Goggins allowed his
> name to be appended. It was not a genuine attempt to create a debate or
> to ask if tougher measures were needed; it assumed the law needed to be
> strengthened and set out ways for Blunkett to take the UK one or two
> steps further towards a police state. Does that seem familiar?
>
> Whilst it would not affect me in any way, I must admit that I was not
> aware that Barmy Blunkett's Sexual Offences Act 2003 (implemented 1 May
> 2004) made it a criminal offence (up to 7 years in gaol) to pay someone
> who was 16 or 17 years old for sexual services. Yet the age of consent
> presumably remains at 16...
>
> One would have to be blind, barmy or both not to see the contradiction.
>
>>Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:38 PM
>>Subject: Home Office website
>>
>>> Dear Amelie
>>>
>>> First of all, many apologies that it has taken so long to confirm and
>>> answer
>>> your enquiry.
>>>
>>> Inevitably, we have experienced quite a few technical glitches as a
>>> result
>>> of redeveloping our websites in October, and this has unfortunately
>>> meant
>>> quite long delays in answering all of the feedback we received.
>>>
>>> We apologise for the trouble you experienced with the site. Many of the
>>> problems that occurred immediately after launch have been fixed.
>>> However,
>>> if
>>> you are still experiencing trouble, please let us know the exact nature
>>> of
>>> the problem, and we will do our best to fix it.
>>>
>>> Once again, we do apologise for the length of time it took to respond to
>>> your query. This sort of delay is very unlikely to occur again in
>>> future.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> CD Webmaster
>
> One may safely distrust anyone who uses the valedictory address of "Best
> regards", for their education seems to have been inadequate.
>
> Quote source code:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > content="2005-01-12" />
>
>
> > />
> > />
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> mean?
>
>
> --
> < Paul >
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4280
>
rosalee, 05 Jan 2006 22:00:56
So does this mean that all those 16 and 17 year olds having sex quite legally and consensually are in fact being abused?
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: Amelie, 05 Jan 2006 22:00:56
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] Fw: Home Office website
just read the document which says specifically sex with anyone under 18 is
child abuse!
1.10 consutation box 3
"How do we ensure that it is clearly understood that those using young
people under 18 for sex are guilty of child abuse?"
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Paul C. Dickie, 06 Jan 2006 02:04:57
In message <001201c61227$1d43b980$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie osynthesis.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>just read the document which says specifically sex with anyone under 18 is
>child abuse!
>1.10 consutation box 3
>"How do we ensure that it is clearly understood that those using young
>people under 18 for sex are guilty of child abuse?"
Quite.
The age of consent for both straight and gay sex *was* equalised at 16,
wasn't it?
So how on earth did Barmy Blunkett manage to get away with that
redefinition of paedophilia?
Was the whole of Parliament asleep that day?
--
< Paul >
Roel, 06 Jan 2006 11:32:25
Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> Whilst it would not affect me in any way, I must admit that I was not
> aware that Barmy Blunkett's Sexual Offences Act 2003 (implemented 1 May
> 2004) made it a criminal offence (up to 7 years in gaol) to pay someone
> who was 16 or 17 years old for sexual services. Yet the age of consent
> presumably remains at 16...
>
> One would have to be blind, barmy or both not to see the contradiction.
It is actually quite similar to current Dutch law, under which sixteen
is the age of consent for normal, voluntary sex, while 18 is the minimum
age for prostitution and appearing in erotic pictures and such.
The statement: "How do we ensure that it is clearly understood that
those using young people under 18 for sex are guilty of child abuse?"
seems more worrying to me, as it might include all sex acts, also those
not being prostitution.
Roel
--
http://www.touwtjes.tk/ - bondage website (Dutch & English)
http://www.touwtjes.tk/yahoo - Bondage forum & community (Dutch)
Graham Marsden, 06 Jan 2006 14:41:57
Paul C. Dickie wrote:
>>"How do we ensure that it is clearly understood that those using young
>>people under 18 for sex are guilty of child abuse?"
>
> The age of consent for both straight and gay sex *was* equalised at 16,
> wasn't it?
>
> So how on earth did Barmy Blunkett manage to get away with that
> redefinition of paedophilia?
>
> Was the whole of Parliament asleep that day?
Probably just not paying attention or caught up in a media frenzy, just
as when the Sexual Offences Act redefined an "indecent photograph" of a
"child" as being of one under 18 instead of under 16, which, IIRC,
caused The Sun to have to destroy a large selection of photos of models
such as Sam Fox who posed for Page 3 when they were 16.
Cheers,
Graham.
«No Name Set», 06 Jan 2006 20:34:15
Nope - it has no impact on people having sex for
love/fun/friendship.
It is to do with freeing women from the clutches of pimps. The
original idea was that if an adult woman chose to earn her
living from prostitution, that was her decision, but that for a
pimp to put a minor onto the game for his financial game was a
no-no.
I don't think anyone here would deny that the world is not
without undesirable pimps.
Several years ago, the Met had adopted the operating policy that
if a minor (as opposed to legally adult) came before them on
prostitution charges, they'd regard her as a victim of her pimp
rather than, necessarily, prosecuting her.
[Of course, this is not to say that an adult woman can't be a
victim of an undesirable pimp too.]
It was particularly a problem as they were finding rather a lot
of young women who had been trafficked into the UK by white
slave traders and had been forced into prostitution, and were
virtually prisoners of their traffickers.
The transition from this to making it illegal to be a client of
a 17 year old is, I agree, far less obviously sensible. It
sounds to me on a par with the age of consent, which was raised
to 16 (from 13) to have a legal tool to use against pimps
putting 13, 14 and 15 year olds on the game - the punter was
breaking the age of consent law and guilty of statutory rape,
and the pimp guilty of aiding and abetting statutory rape. A
very backhanded way of going about controlling pimping.
Rosemary
--
Rosemary F. Johnson
UKR, 08 Jan 2006 16:48:38
Author wrote:
> Nope - it has no impact on people having sex for
> love/fun/friendship.
> It is to do with freeing women from the clutches of pimps. The
> original idea was that if an adult woman chose to earn her
> living from prostitution, that was her decision, but that for a
> pimp to put a minor onto the game for his financial game was a
> no-no.
> I don't think anyone here would deny that the world is not
> without undesirable pimps.
> Several years ago, the Met had adopted the operating policy that
> if a minor (as opposed to legally adult) came before them on
> prostitution charges, they'd regard her as a victim of her pimp
> rather than, necessarily, prosecuting her.
> [Of course, this is not to say that an adult woman can't be a
> victim of an undesirable pimp too.]
> It was particularly a problem as they were finding rather a lot
> of young women who had been trafficked into the UK by white
> slave traders and had been forced into prostitution, and were
> virtually prisoners of their traffickers.
> The transition from this to making it illegal to be a client of
> a 17 year old is, I agree, far less obviously sensible. It
> sounds to me on a par with the age of consent, which was raised
> to 16 (from 13) to have a legal tool to use against pimps
> putting 13, 14 and 15 year olds on the game - the punter was
> breaking the age of consent law and guilty of statutory rape,
> and the pimp guilty of aiding and abetting statutory rape. A
> very backhanded way of going about controlling pimping.
> Rosemary
> --
> Rosemary F. Johnson
*************************
Just a few dull facts about how the age of consent was ultimately raised from 12 years old to 16 years old for any who are interested ...
In the 1860s the age of consent was twelve years old. Some people such as Josephine Butler (who campaigned on behalf of prostitutes, rather than against them) and Barbara Bodichon were concerned that young girls were being sold to brothels. They became involved in the campaign against the white slave trade and in 1875 the House of Commons agreed to raise the age of consent to thirteen.
Campaigners were not satisfied with this change and continued to argue for further reform. In 1885 William Stead and Bramwell Booth of the Salvation Army joined forces to expose what they believed was an increase in child prostitution. In July 1885, Stead purchased Eliza Armstrong, a thirteen year-old daughter of a chimney-sweep, to show how easy it was to procure young girls for prostitution. Stead published an account of his investigations in the Pall Mall Gazette entitled 'Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon'.
In September, William Stead and five others were charged with unlawfully kidnapping a minor and committed for trial at the Old Bailey. Stead was found guilty and was imprisoned for three months in Holloway Gaol. As a result of the publicity that the Armstrong case generated, Parliament in 1885 passed the Criminal Law Amendment Act that raised the age of consent from thirteen to sixteen.
zak, 10 Jan 2006 10:39:55
Original Message:
-----------------
forumite@umbilical.demon.co.uk (Rosemary F. Johnson), 10 Jan 2006 10:39:55
Nope - it has no impact on people having sex for
love/fun/friendship.
It is to do with freeing women from the clutches of pimps. The
original idea was that if an adult woman chose to earn her
living from prostitution, that was her decision, but that for a
pimp to put a minor onto the game for his financial game was a
no-no.
I don't think anyone here would deny that the world is not
without undesirable pimps.
--
Rosemary F. Johnson
I wouldn't deny that, but what a lot of people do deny is that plenty of
sex workers are
not victims of evil pimps but people who have made a conscious decision to
earn money that
way. Also, not all pimps are evil: some provide a good level of support and
back up to sex
workers.
The issue of 16-17 year olds is a tricky one which comes back to the same
old problem of
when is a person to be regarded as sufficiently adult to make sexual
choices (be it to
have sex, to obtain contraception or an abortion, or to sell sexual
services either for an
hourly rate or by getting married).
z
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .