Talk:Age of consent reform in the United Kingdom

Neutrality

What's the point of tagging disputed neutrality if you don't say what you're disputing? The tag should be removed.217.43.168.176 (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This page could be cited as a good example of the breaching of WP:UNDUE. As far as I am aware, the majority of the public, the newspapers/commentators and parliament want the age of consent to stay as it is (with differing views between conservatives/liberals as to how seriously it should be taken), and there is (and certainly was) a level of support for an increase to (or in NI continuation of) 17 or 18. Therefore, this page should be change to something like “British manifestations to ‘‘change’’ the age of consent” and these views reflected. Billwilson5060 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Several years later, and I've got to agree with the user above: this article seems to be implicitly biased, by listing supporters of lowering the age of consent and their arguments, but not the (considerably more numerous) supporters of keeping it as it is and their arguments. Robofish (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed to "Age of consent reform (UK)" and tagged that this article does not express all viewpoints. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 16:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This page was clearly written by someone who thinks the age of consent should be lowered as low as possible, as they have only represented this side of the argument. They have totally ignored the fact that thousands of people suffer long term psychological damage as a result of sexual exploitation by predatory and unscrupulous adults who don't care about how they feel and avoid facing the damage done so long as they get what they want out of it. If you lower the age of consent to 12 or 10, what law can protect a child from the manipulation of psychopathic pervert? Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:116C:4A00:71BD:B6EA:2F19:E7EA (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Age of consent reform (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/398773/Lower-the-age-of-consent-No-we-ought-to-raise-it

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Age of consent reform (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216064745/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/si/si2008/draft/ukdsi_9780110800936_en_1 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/draft/ukdsi_9780110800936_en_1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Age of consent reform in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130628040525/http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html to http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

My changes

Helper201 The main thing I removed were some statistics on puberty and adolescent sexual development which I cut down to one sentence. This whole article is written with a slant towards advocating for reducing the age of consent and to some extent whitewashes a movement which was driven by people who wanted to sexually abuse children (see link:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/26/lobbying-paedophile-campaign-revealed-hewitt). My various changes were designed to start to deal with that. However, I did accidentally remove a paragraph about polls of teenaged girls which I will re-add --Llewee (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Llewee thank you for coming to the talk page to discuss this. I think the statistics should absolutely be kept. If you want the article to be more balanced then it’s much better to add reliable information of the counter view than it is to remove information from either side of the debate. Helper201 (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

We should aim to make the reader as informed as possible. The more information from all sides of the debate and statistics the better. Helper201 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Helper201 Look I will set up a section science i think the rest of the reforms are needed to make the article more neutral.Llewee (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Llewee the page can certainly be balanced and the neutrality improved without removing any of what is currently stated but just adding other views with reliable sources. Expanding is far better than redacting information. Helper201 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Criticism section

This currently consists of a single ungrammatical (i.e. unparseable) sentence, whose core structure is Evidence from some of the groups have included pædophiles. Is this intended to mean

1. There is evidence that some of the groups have included pædophiles,
2. Some of the groups who provided evidence have included pædophiles,
3. Evidence provided by some of the groups was given by pædophiles,

or something else? They're all making statements that need to be carefully worded because of their seriousness. In particular, (3) is a statement about a specific group of individuals so shouldn't be a possible reading unless it's the intended one.

Musiconeologist (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)