Blunkett stands by teenage petting law

Dream 09-21-2003

avid Blunkett has vowed to resist pressure to scrap a new law which could theoretically see teenagers sent to jail for fondling each other.

The Home Secretary's crackdown, aimed at paedophiles, includes a maximum five-year jail term for "sexually touching" someone under 16.

But it makes no distinction between sexual abuse by predatory adults and mere experimentation by consenting youngsters.

In extreme cases, parents could even face a 14-year jail term for knowingly letting their children engage in such "behind the bike shed" activities, under further clauses to protect minors from being sexually exploited.

Critics of the proposed measures say they have been badly drafted and could see youngsters prosecuted for perfectly innocent behaviour.

Barry Hugill, of the civil rights group Liberty, said: "I am sure that the overwhelming majority will believe this is silly. Most of them know the difference between abuse and teenagers snogging."

Rachel Hodgkin, an adviser at the Family Planning Association, said: "There is a maximum of five years for snogging or sexually touching someone. You could get the trauma of your perfectly normal sexual life as an adolescent being investigated as a major criminal offence."

The Sexual Offences Amendment Bill will go before MPs in committee stage in the House of Commons this week.

A Home Office spokesman said Mr Blunkett would not heed efforts to water down the proposals.

She said the Home Secretary had no intention of criminalising teenagers, but believed tough measures were needed to target paedophiles.

The age of consent for sexual activity was 16, she stressed, and children had the right to be protected from sexual abuse by other children.

"We believe that the law has to be crystal clear about the age of sexual consent, and any sexual activity below that age is not lawful," she added.

However, guidelines would be issued to the Crown Prosecution

Service instructing it not to prosecute under-16s involved in genuinely consensual experimentation.

The clause is the latest part of the proposed Sexual Offences Amendment Bill to be attacked as loosely worded and potentially Draconian.

Plans to ban sex in public have been scrapped after ministers admitted it would outlaw a couple having sex in their garden.

They have also been forced to change clauses on indecent exposure after nudists complained they could be targeted.

And they were accused of criminalising agony aunts under proposals to crack down on discussing sexual matters with teenagers, which are aimed at preventing paedophiles "grooming" children through internet chatrooms.

Peers also inflicted a humiliating defeat on the Government by insisting on a ban on sex in public lavatories to replace old legislation outlawing "cottaging".

Hsoolien

IN Canada the age of consent is 14, however if somoene holds a position of authority over the other part of the couple (per example a teacher and a student) then there is another law that adresses taking advantage of that posititon. Since MOST childern don't really start experimenting till 14 anyays it works out pretty well.

Nina

Damn that's new to me. 14 seems kinda low but I guess it depends on the society.

Hsoolien

I guess 14 was decided cause then there would be no issues of two teenagers 'experimenting' (it was brought up some ten years ago that a angry parent could charge their daughters BF for being too intimate with her...), I still would not persona;y date a girl under 18, but that's just me...

SinPhullDreams

Well 16 is the age if your parents consent .... There for meanin that if you are 16 and your family knows you are haveing sex and they are cool with it you are ok, yet if they are not you can get in a lot of trouble and I think sex should be left to a family to teach and not the gov to mandate... There are to many other bad things that a child can do then touch a feel... Such as shot on another and seel drugs to one another....I played when I was young never had sex , yet my family also taugh me the ins and outs of sex and I did what i felt was the right thing and I think a parent should not be in trouble if there child will not adhear to the woos of sex... You as a parent can only do so much and if you are teaching your child the right way there is nothing you can real do to stop a child from having sex or touching and feeling one another up, when it comes to touching and feeling that is unwelcome then as a parent you should have taugh your child what to do in that case weather is be a man woman touching a child or a friend in school who got to frisky.....