http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24976929

So, does a year make a difference? I think 16 seems about right, and changing it because a third of kids are supposedly shagging at 15 doesn't seem like much justification. Porn and culture probably shouldn't be lumped in so quick either.

i think that when the age of consent was lowered from 21 to 18 then 16 was to satisfy certain needs within a minority
this minority just happen to be in positions of elected power ...

Seems appropriate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjsufO9hZwo - NSFW, Dave Chappelle on how old is 15 really?

Why not simply issue a Statutory Instrument to allow teachers to refer pupils to the NHS and for the NHS to give advice no matter what age the child is? No need to change the law, just allow certain people the right to inform the children. Lowering the age might be problematic.

As a GP, I have already given contraception and contraceptive advice to girls under the age of 16. The long and short of it is that kids are gonna have sex, so either they can have contraception or they can come back with an unwanted pregnancy.

I think that the problem is that some are worried that they could be prosecuted for giving such advice. It should be allowed so that there is no risk.

Lowering the age is just daft. Children may want sex at that age, but they often lack the maturity to deal with it.

In this country, yes. Teenagers have sex. Many before the age consent. Probably not the majority, but a number.
Apparently not in France and Germany, where there's a lower age of consent and a lower teenage pregnancy rate. I think the interesting question is why is that? What is it about our culture that apparently waits for more mature minds to give consent, yet we end up with more teenage pregnancies?

Not really. If the teenager is "Gillick competent" ie understands what you're saying, the pros/cons of treatment/no treatment and can weigh things up to come to a conclusion, then you can treat them (in this case, prescribe contraception). Obviously if the child is under 13, social services need to be involved.


I don't think it's just teenage pregnancies. Look at the entire British culture - going out, getting smashed, promiscuous activity - is promoted through the media, through celebrities etc. I guess it then filters down to the younger age groups which is why you have kids aged 9 or 10 smoking cigarettes or drinking.

IMO the current British culture is why legalised drugs are a bad idea. If we were a more "mature" society, I'd have fewer hang-ups about it.

Roughly one third, according to the BBC News this evening.


Because our culture is more individualist and less socialist (small 's')? We're much more wrapped up in our own immediate wants and desires than thinking about the long term?

Though will that create other problems. If children under 13 do not get contraception or refuse to seek advice because of social services potential involvement, will that mean we end up with more teen pregnancies? The fact that children are effectively excluded from proper advice means that that they will get it from inaccurate sources.

If a child under the age of 13 has had sex, it's defined as rape and hence needs to be reported.

Even between two thirteen year olds? Who is the victim? Do they both go on the sex offenders register? Common sense needs to be applied.

Partly. The parents are also more active. Although consent if 15 here, a lot of parents go with their daughters to the doctor's before they are 14 and arrange with their gynaecologist for them to receive contraception.

Also there are age limits for partners. A partner must be under 21, for example, to legally have sex with an under 16 year old.

Sweden has a similar law.