Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
It's not entirely surprising though, is it. While the State decrees that sex under the age of 16 is illegal, the State on the other hand is quite willing to hand out contraception, up to and including the morning after pill, to underage girls, not always with the knowledge of the child's parents.
The notion that underage, teenage sex is tolerated, if not technically approved of, has become embedded in our society, and all we have left is a messy, ill-defined debate over exactly when it should be treated as a crime and when it should simply be covered up with a quick, secret visit to Boots.
|
I don't there is a contradiction there. The sex is assumed to be between two consenting teenagers and the contraception is available because we accept it's going to happen. The issue here isn't sex under the age of 16 but adults having sex with people under 16 which is exploitive and abusive.
I guess damage can still be done if both people are under 16 but the relationship wouldn't have the same exploitive dynamic if both parties are the same age.
---------- Post added at 15:31 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by colin25
i didn't say he was DG then. But he was in charge of tribute programming, and should have at least asked the question.
And the BBC is in focus, because they should have done more, as a public company. But chose to ignore. Hence the focus on them, but not to exclusion of others, hence the other stories coming out.
I am all "henced" out now  |
He could have asked more questions but it's not really an issue that he didn't. The News Programming wasn't his department and he had no control over their output. He didn't have a decision to make other than to pull the tributes if the Newsnight documentary went ahead.