1. Home
  2. UK Do-It-Yourself Forum
  3. that royal punter
  4. Page 2

that royal punter

Depends whether or not he got her to play with his ding-a-ling ;-)

Reply to
NY
Loading thread data ...

Not an "exemption" as such.

It would be open to any independent state in the world either to recognise that as lawful or, if they preffered, illegal.

But the law in the UK was then subtly different from what it would be today.

There was an offence of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16".

If the mere fact that she was not yet 16 was all that was important, the term "unlawful" would be an unnecessary addition to that.

The law recognised a foreign marriage - even to a girl as young as 13 in some jurisdictions - as lawful and for sexual intercourse within that marriage as lawful. For that reason, the charge of "unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16" could never be made out where the couple are married.

[ ... ]

See above. It would be prudent to check, though.

Yes - some American states have such provisions.

English law distinguishes sexual activity with a girl under 16 from sexual activity with a girl under 13, which is sort of what you are saying.

Reply to
JNugent

You are right.

Apologies.

What is illegal in Florida (AOC: 18) is an offence if committed in Florida, but not necessarily an offence if committed / indulged in elsewhere. And that's surely what you'd expect.

Reply to
JNugent

If those are the facts, that be what English law has long called "indecent assault".

Reply to
JNugent

If I recall correctly, he was at least guilty of bigamy, as he was already married before marrying his 'child bride'...

Or was he a mormon :-)

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

There's also the separate issue when a position of trust (eg teacher/student) exists. And that may be a legal offence, or only a disciplinary offence within the teaching profession.

What's the situation if a teacher and student meet at school (maybe the teacher actually teaches the student, maybe not) but they do not have an affair. After the student has left the school, they get together and into a relationship - when the student is over 16 and maybe over 18. Has any offence (legal or disciplinary) occurred? I suppose they'd have to convince people that the relationship really *hadn't* begun but been hushed-up while the student was still at school. How about doctor/patient (everyone being over 18): is any offence (eg disciplinary) committed if the patient transfers to another doctor (maybe in the same practice) before the relationship begins?

The son of one of my mum's friends had counselling sessions with a woman. After that course of counselling finished (*), they began going out. So that's a lapsed position of trust like I'm describing above.

I'm sure I remember a case where a couple were banned from *ever* having a relationship because they'd *first* met (but done nothing) while a position of trust existed. Seemed a tad draconian, that one.

(*) As it was described to me, it was a case of "goodbye, you're cured, good luck - but now I'm not counselling you, fancy going out for a drink?".

Reply to
NY

That reminds me of the quip from a judge in one of John Mortimer's Rumpole stories - he looked at the clock, decided to break for lunch, and interrupted the QC, saying "I propose we leave it there until 2 o'clock".

Reply to
NY

:-)

Reply to
JNugent

It's "transporting a minor over state lines for immoral purposes".

Reply to
Tim Streater

Yes, I think you're right. Total bollocks of course (as is much in the US legal sphere), since if he was legally married to her (in terms of marriagable age in the source state), then I don't see that the destination state has anything to say about the matter.

Reply to
Tim Streater

That's becuase he is a fathead.

Reply to
Tim Streater

No, he's wrong. It was Chick Berry - two years for a sexual offence (broadly defined) in 1959. And a suspended sentence for another in 1989.

It doesn't, and didn't.

The UK state was not involved in the slightest in the Jerry Lee Lewis "incident" except for a passport check.

The moral outrage mainly came from the direction of that bastion of propriety (not), the Daily Mirror.

formatting link

SFW

Reply to
JNugent

Chuck, not Chick.

Reply to
JNugent

Whether he did what he's accused of doing is now pretty much irrelevant. Mud sticks, and he's plastered in it.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

It used to be legal to marry a 13-year-old abroad (where it is legal), bring her back to Britain and shag her silly. I don't know whether it still is.

Reply to
Max Demian

Fairy nuff.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Why would you want two wives?

Granted you can let them fight over who is going to do the cooking, the washing and whose turn is it to get knobbed etc

But imagine the earache if you promised both of them that you would do a bit of DIY at the weekend but instead you went to the pub with your mates and got pissed.

Reply to
ARW

I read that one of the reasons for some cultures allowing more than one wife is for when one of them was "off games". But biology gets its own back because over time, women who live in close proximity (assuming they all lived in the same household) tend to end up "in sync", so they'd *all* be "off games" at the same time.

Reply to
NY

I now understand that this is a popular myth (the synchronisation).

Reply to
Bob Eager

The Spice Girls said that it happened to them.

Obviously not with their voices.

Reply to
ARW

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.