To think this is odd in view of what’s already been said

Smileless2012

I'm sure we are all aware of the definition of a child Petera as we are all aware that it is not an act of paedophilia to have consensual sex with an untrafficked person between the ages of 16 and 18.

So back to the question then: in this case, are newspapers correct in using the word paedophile?

No. Definitely not in this country.

Germanshepherdsmum

No. Definitely not in this country.

So can you then reconcile these statements, the first from several dictionsries, the second from the NSPCC (or are the NSPCC wrong)?

Paedophile: someone who is sexually attracted to children

Child: in England someone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday.

The NSPCC are, in this instance, wrong if those two definitions are intended to be conflated. I was engaged to my first husband at 17. He may have been many things but paedophile wasn’t one of them.

I have posted the correct definitions on the other page

No the papers are wrong to use the word paedophile, and the NSPCC is also wrong if they're conflating the definitions.

Petera. You are conflating the issue here. Whether someone is classed as a child until 18 or 80 it’s irrelevant when discussing whether it’s criminal to have sexual relations with a girl of 17 in this country. It isn’t and to do so doesn’t make that person a paedophile. Therefore, as I stated upthread, in law it does matter.

Petera What is known as the age of consent is 16 in the UK. At that age it is accepted that a person can give informed consent to sexual intercourse or other activity with another person over that age as well. The exception is where one of the two parties involved has some authority over the 16 year old - a teacher or guardian or the like, in which case it is illegal until the person is 18.

Here is a link to what ages children are entitled, or allowed to do various things lawstuff.org.uk/at-what-age-can-i/at-what-age-timeline/

This particular unsavoury behaviour upsets us because we expect better from men, especially those who have power & wealth,……. Even more so if they have daughters of their own….
It is unforgivable to treat another human as of no consequence.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10558775/amp/MPs-blocked-investigating-public-money-used-fund-Prince-Andrews-12m-settlement.html

convenient ancient laws

Indeed.

Bridgeit

This particular unsavoury behaviour upsets us because we expect better from men, especially those who have power & wealth,……. Even more so if they have daughters of their own….
It is unforgivable to treat another human as of no consequence.

I think most of us don’t know what goes on with wealthy and powerful men ( even with daughters of their own!) Aren’t there hundreds of prostitutes all over the country? Who are their clients? What goes on at corporate events where attractive young women are bought in for entertainment ? Best not to dwell on it.

NDA (No Debate on Andrew): MPs blocked from investigating whether public money was used to fund Duke of York's £12m settlement by ancient custom barring discussion of royals in Parliament.

M0nica

I think we forget that PA's behaviour caused collateral damage in his own family. His daughters have had to see all the sleaze and details of his unseemly life plastered all over the papers.

I think it remarkable that these daughters of two such totally dysfunctional adults they seem to have turned out, so very well and face up to the world with such equanimity.

They seem to have inherited the steely self-possession when confronting disaster that the Queen has.

I often think that about Princess Margaret's children. She and her husband seemed to have little or nothing in the way of morals, and mixed with a pretty sleazy crowd. Margaret was also unbelievably arrogant and self entitled.
Yet their son and daughter appear to be stable, modest and grounded people, who keep out of the limelight and make no big deal out of their royal connections.