1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundWhy do you feel the need to state "i'll repeat my earlier post"? Your post is full of inaccuracies!
i'll repeat my earlier post
It was deemed unconstitutional when a young guy challenged the law under the argument that "he thought the girl was 17".
The "Mr A" case fell apart, not because he thought the girl was 17, but because there was no provision in the law for the "legitimate mistake" defence, which is (apparently) unconstitutional.
The age of consent for males was 15. The age of consent for females was 17.
D
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundi have always believed that the term statutory rape is used when the they consent to it (the term rape only being used because the minor is not mature enough to make that decision)
raping a minor is statutory rape. which means its "rape" whether she consented or not
if so then "raping" a minor is NOT statutory rape, its child abuse.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ragnorakthe age of consent for a girl was 17 you cretin.
Why do you feel the need to state "i'll repeat my earlier post"? Your post is full of inaccuracies!
The "Mr A" case fell apart, not because he thought the girl was 17, but because there was no provision in the law for the "legitimate mistake" defence, which is (apparently) unconstitutional.
The age of consent for males [b]was 15. The age of consent for females was 7.
D[/b]
and the MR A case was an apeal based on a supreme court judgement on an earlier case.
Get your facts straight. This is the last time i will correct your stupid mistakes
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundSeriously, cut your liquor intake/posting ratio.
fool
From the Irish Times...
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/0601/2910871839HM1LEAD.html
"The court ruled that the law on sexual offences against young girls was unconstitutional because it did not allow an accused person put forward a defence that he had made an honest mistake as to the girl's age."
"It was not clear last night whether the age of consent for boys would also remain unchanged at 15."
Now, I'm not going to blast you at all for being a drunken ejit, because, frankly, I'm just after a wedding and am full of love for my drunken brethren, but you do really need to cut back on posting BS after a night on the heavy.
I accept your apologies for the name calling.
D
Originally posted by MCAwait there. woah Camel.
you should try not to be so insulting friend. if the law has changed then it would be simpler to just post a link to somewhere which states this than to through insults about
1. he said the age of consent for a girl was 7. that makes him an idiot
2. he said that the MR A case fell because . .. .yada yada yada. The MR A case was brought because of a supreme court ruling on another case. this make him a FOOL.
i do know a thing or two about this, y'know 🙂
Originally posted by MCAYou're struggling to get the right answer. Up until the Mr A case of last week, the relevant government departments were giving out incorrect and conflicting information. 1 department stating that the age of consent was 17, another giving the correct information, and another giving different information altogether.
like i said "as far as i understand" .. but if that is incorrect then please feel free to enlighten me
[edit] i got my figures from : http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm[/edit]
D