Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8056700.stm

I must admit I am not surprised.

Personally I think the whole thing is pretty sick.

I can't help wondering if the newly confirmed father (or his parents) had these tests done in order to have a beneficial and fatherly influence on the upbringing of his child or to sell his story to the press...

<sigh>

I'm sure I read about this a few weeks back - why has it only just appeared in the BBC news?

I'm told the young lady in question has a really reliable bicycle !

Given that a number of youngsters claimed to be the possible father of this baby, why are they not all being prosecuted for having sex with a 'minor'? Or is it not an offense if the perpetrator is also a minor? Am I being naive in assuming that they would all be less likely to boast about their 'prowess' if they knew they would face jailtime? Or if their parents had to face the consequences? Who gets to pay the maintenance for the resulting baby? How long, I wonder, before he/she is also claiming an ASBO as a medal of honour?!

Sorry I am definitely getting old and grumpy!

An interesting question, Fjgrogan

Things may have changed, but in my day two individuals under the age of 16 indulging in the pleasures of the flesh would NOT be prosecuted, but probably referred to the equivalent of todays so called Social Services.

Males between 16-21 MIGHT be prosecuted of indulging in the pleasures of the flesh with a girl under 16.

Males over 21 ALMOST DEFINITELY would be prosecuted of indulging in the pleasures of the flesh with a girl under 16, and would expect to receive a far more severe sentence than a male between 16-21 !

I even remember a couple of cases in my day of females indulging in the pleasures of the flesh with men/boys UNDER 16, both of which were virtually 'covered up'.

We are now entering the realms of teachers and pupils, which may not be such a wise thing on this forum.

J.R. wrote: I even remember a couple of cases in my day of females indulging in the pleasures of the flesh with men/boys UNDER 16, both of which were virtually 'covered up'.

We are now entering the realms of teachers and pupils, which may not be such a wise thing on this forum.

and now there is debate about how the boy was paraded around in the press, his parents made that decision, they should stand by it

Don't you taxpayers feel proud to be supporting "families" like this?

midget wrote:Don't you taxpayers feel proud to be supporting "families" like this?

I certainly don't !!

midget wrote:Don't you taxpayers feel proud to be supporting "families" like this?

No, but I'll just add it to the list of things our taxes go towards that I don't agree with

lonelymom wrote:

midget wrote:Don't you taxpayers feel proud to be supporting "families" like this?

No, but I'll just add it to the list of things our taxes go towards that I don't agree with

and then, I who has worked since leaving uni solid (ok only 4 yyears but still) am redundant and have signed on for job seekers-ive paid my NI/Taxes i should at least use it and it covers food bill for week!!! To find I can only claim job seekers for 6mths as thats all my 6mths NI amounts too!!! I mean really!!!!

After 6 months you go onto New Deal and do back to work things like computer skills and CV review and stuff (haha) and get halfprice rail travel (Oyster card in London) and you STILL get Jobseekers.

But you will get a new job long before that.

I think I would rather pay taxes for "families like this" than mortgages on second homes (big luxury ones) for MPs.

I see that the age of "Criminal Responsibility" is now --- or about to be-- reduced to 10 !

I think this was in response to the murder of the baby, by two youngsters some years ago
Is it possible, for this to apply, only, to selected Crime ? ? ?