ivan Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I prefered Linda Lusardi back then anyway (ahem) Hell yes! And she's still gorgeous even now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupra Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I've always found it a bit strange that you can have sex within the law at 16, but you can't watch it untill your 18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Same as you can have kids at 16 but can't drink till you're 18. What takes more responsibility really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Class One Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Same as you can have kids at 16 but can't drink till you're 18. What takes more responsibility really? Yes you can, you can have wine perry or porter ordered with a meal at 16 or 17. But yeah the law is rediculous sometimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Same as you can have kids at 16 but can't drink till you're 18. What takes more responsibility really? You can have kids when a woman starts her period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Hell yes! And she's still gorgeous even now. And the only reason for watching Emmerdale too! The mature man's Hollyoaks I always thought I was too young for her, but she married someone my age anyway, so it just goes to show. What, I have no idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 And the only reason for watching Emmerdale too! The mature man's Hollyoaks I always thought I was too young for her, but she married someone my age anyway, so it just goes to show. What, I have no idea! Is Linda Lusardi in Emmerdale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Yes you can, you can have wine perry or porter ordered with a meal at 16 or 17. I heard once that anyone over 12 can legally drink alcohol if given permission by an adult, and under that age must be permission from a parent - sounded like tosh though. You can have kids when a woman starts her period. Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibbleyuk Posted March 6, 2007 Author Share Posted March 6, 2007 IIRC making/distributing indecent photographs/pictures and psuedo pictures of a child under 18 is an offence under Sec 1 Protection of Children Act 1978. Possessing them is an offence under Sec160 Criminal Justice Act. But it's a case of defining "indecent". There are defences, one of them being if you married to the subject and they are for personal use. I haven't seen the pics in question so couldn't comment on them. As the law defines a child as someone under 18, topless pics of a girl aged 16 or 17 would fall under the act. (this came into effect under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 definitaion of a child and the Childrens & Young Persons Act). So what they are doing isnt legal! it just makes me sick thats why i post up you dont need to be a member http://www.carcruzin.co.uk/forum/files/ there is a mixture loads of cars etc but the female pics here and the ones im talking about think they start. p10102 somit somit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Is Linda Lusardi in Emmerdale? Yep, but I haven't dared starting watching it yet tho. I would only Sky+ it and watch the bits she's in, which would spoil it a bit for my girlie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 But yeah the law is rediculous sometimes As I've probably mentioned before, the law is hampered by our judicial system. Because jurys and judges can be swayed by evil, money-grabbing, b*stard lawyers (did I mention I don't like lawyers? ), many laws have to put black and white limitations on what should really be morally "grey" areas, so that convictions can be made. For example, the "underage sex" thing. Many people are sufficiently mature to have consenting, safe sex whilst they are still considered to be legally underage. Whereas many people considered legally old enough are nowhere near emotionally mature enough to have a sexual relationship. Morally, it's a grey area and would ideally be treated on a case-by-case basis, but in order for the judicial system to work efficiently, black-and-white lines have to be drawn. In most cases, these lines are in the right place for most people, but an unlucky few WILL get caught out where their personal (and possibly valid) morals differ from those of law. As a further illustration; the age of consent differs quite a bit throughout the world (http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm). Are we sure that ours is "correct"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 As I've probably mentioned before, the law is hampered by our judicial system. I've always said that, I don't know why people go to prison for manslaughter for example. It's an accident at the end of the day, what is prison supposed to do? They're not 'bad' people who intended to kill, and it won't teach them a lesson apart from they'll probably be worse people when they come out!!! The only reason I can see for a prison sentence is that we don't trust our courts to 'prove' without doubt that it was an accident, so we have to blanket the whole thing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Precisely! Causing Death By Dangerous Driving is the same sort of thing. Either you were driving dangerously or you weren't. That's the only distinction. Whether somebody died or not as a result is a symptom of the specific circumstances, rather than the actual intent of the driver, or even how dangerously they were driving!!! It seems to me like the assumption is just there that most dangerous driving incidents that cause death must have been REALLY bad, whereas if you merely managed to maim a bunch of kids without actually killing them, then you couldn't have been driving that dangerously! Again, it comes down to the fact that unless the judge can use hard facts (like a death occuring) to enforce sentences, then anyone with enough money to pay an expensive legal team can talk their way out of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Precisely! Causing Death By Dangerous Driving is the same sort of thing. Like if they can prove you were doing 35 in a 30 when you hit someone. That's worth 14 years in prison then!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lust2luv Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I'm sure it's not illegal for under 18s to drink alcohol, just illegal to sell it to them. I think a 5 year old can drink booze in a pub garden if his parents give it to him. Likewise I'm sure the Sun has had 16 year old page 3 girls in recent years (not that I ever buy such an excuse for a newspaper). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Precisely! Causing Death By Dangerous Driving is the same sort of thing. Either you were driving dangerously or you weren't. That's the only distinction. Whether somebody died or not as a result is a symptom of the specific circumstances, rather than the actual intent of the driver, or even how dangerously they were driving!!! It seems to me like the assumption is just there that most dangerous driving incidents that cause death must have been REALLY bad, whereas if you merely managed to maim a bunch of kids without actually killing them, then you couldn't have been driving that dangerously! Again, it comes down to the fact that unless the judge can use hard facts (like a death occuring) to enforce sentences, then anyone with enough money to pay an expensive legal team can talk their way out of anything. It's an interesting point of view - but I think people's perspective changes somewhat when it really happens. If your significant other or child was hit and killed by a 17 year old driver with no insurance, no MOT who was driving at 35mph past a school with a 20mph speed limit and was not paying attention because he was on his mobile phone, you would be happy that he was fined / given points for driving with no insurance / no MOT and driving without due care and attention? When it goes to court the fact that he actually killed somebody is not even relevant to the case? I don't think so. I could go out, drive at 60mph in a 30mph speed limit and do donuts in the middle of the road. That would be dangerous driving. While doing my donuts in the middle of the road, I could lose control and accelerate into a queue full of people, killing several of them. The two things are not the same. The potential consequences of both might be the same - but when those consequences actually become real then the punishment has to match it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitesupraboy2 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 You forget most of the people on those types of sites who are 'active' members are 17 or 18. So are fully interested. Hell I was when I was that young! But now my age limit is 20, any younger and they annoy me by opening their mouth and winging talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I could go out, drive at 60mph in a 30mph speed limit and do donuts in the middle of the road. That would be dangerous driving. While doing my donuts in the middle of the road, I could lose control and accelerate into a queue full of people, killing several of them. The two things are not the same. The potential consequences of both might be the same - but when those consequences actually become real then the punishment has to match it. Whilst I see what you're saying, it all sounds horribly like revenge rather than rehabilitation. That said, maybe that's why it's called "Justice"? If your significant other or child was hit and killed by a 17 year old driver with no insurance, no MOT who was driving at 35mph past a school with a 20mph speed limit and was not paying attention because he was on his mobile phone, you would be happy that he was fined / given points for driving with no insurance / no MOT and driving without due care and attention? When it goes to court the fact that he actually killed somebody is not even relevant to the case? I don't think the fact he killed someone is relevant, no*. However, I think that having no insurance, no MOT, speeding and being on the phone whilst driving should all carry much more severe penalties than they currently do. Probably jail sentences. That way, everybody who commits these offences gets punished whether they happen to kill anyone or not. *edit: Although that's just given me an idea that maybe Dangerous Driving, or Driving W/O Due (and, of course, Speeding) should carry different penalties depending on the surrounding area (ie. worse in built-up areas) and traffic (ie. worse on a busy road). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanchan Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 I'm sure it's not illegal for under 18s to drink alcohol, just illegal to sell it to them. I think a 5 year old can drink booze in a pub garden if his parents give it to him. Likewise I'm sure the Sun has had 16 year old page 3 girls in recent years (not that I ever buy such an excuse for a newspaper). I believe that, at home, your parents can give you alcohol, within reason, from the age of 3. But in a licensed, public location, the law is 18, surely? Not all pubs are licensed for under 18s either. The pub I worked in at uni was only licensed for over 18s, so children were not legally allowed onto the premises, with or without parents/guardians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkey Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 But now my age limit is 20, any younger and they annoy me by opening their mouth and winging talking. But even at that age, they're soo bloody clingy and for lack of better word -childish-. Nah, give me 26-36yr age. By then, at least the girl has finished school .. got some experience under her belt and abit more focused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Class One Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 But even at that age, they're soo bloody clingy and for lack of better word -childish-. Nah, give me 26-36yr age. By then, at least the girl has finished school .. got some experience under her belt and abit more focused. And knows how to use their trick pelvis properly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 It's an interesting point of view - but I think people's perspective changes somewhat when it really happens. If your significant other or child was hit and killed by a 17 year old driver with no insurance, no MOT who was driving at 35mph past a school with a 20mph speed limit and was not paying attention because he was on his mobile phone, you would be happy that he was fined / given points for driving with no insurance / no MOT and driving without due care and attention? When it goes to court the fact that he actually killed somebody is not even relevant to the case? No I wouldn't be happy, and it is relevant. But it shouldn't carry the same sentence as someone who killed them who HAD insurance and MOT, and was driving sensibly apart from going 35 in a 20 outside a school. I don't tend to drive that fast in those areas but we all speed sometimes, and someone speeding and killing someone is hardly going to benefit from 15 years in prison!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 But even at that age, they're soo bloody clingy and for lack of better word -childish-. Nah, give me 26-36yr age. By then, at least the girl has finished school .. got some experience under her belt and abit more focused. And knows how to use their trick pelvis properly Hmmmm that's the older men's opinion then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lust2luv Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 I believe that, at home, your parents can give you alcohol, within reason, from the age of 3. But in a licensed, public location, the law is 18, surely? Not all pubs are licensed for under 18s either. The pub I worked in at uni was only licensed for over 18s, so children were not legally allowed onto the premises, with or without parents/guardians. Ah, hence why I said pub garden, since I don't believe the garden is classed as licensed? I'm sure I heard this on QI once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiten55 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 err, why? I fancy 16 year olds. What is 'wrong' with me? sorry mate, no offence meant, just poor wording. its my personal view, but when some one says 16year old i automatically relate it to school kids, like the ones that cause havoc on my bus in the mornings. anyway thats just my personal view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now