What does 'could' mean? According to who/what? Who has say so? When the options are banning it but then knowing they'll carry on as they are, or letting them carry on in a grown up way - unless there's a black and white line that must not be crossed then 'could' in this context means SFA.
I know you're trying to be helpful but on legalities I'd prefer if it could be left to people who REALLY know.
theotherjonv facilitate was my word " aid abet counsel or procure " is the legal , what does that mean ? The law says words carry their ordinary natural meaning so what ever a jury decides , neadle exchanges have been argued to facilitate drug supply so the risk where you provide shelter condoms etc to fornicating children would be real .
On consent under 16s cannot consent to sexual touching so any sex act between them is illegal. The consent largely discussed above is actual consent in rape allegations. An under 16 can actually consent to sexual penetration so such an act would not be rape because she or he cansents in fact but would be sexual assault as she/he cannot consent in law.
The offences are absolute in that since the public interest point is whether given an offence has occoured is there any point ( public interest ) in a prosecution. That is a value judgemeprotect to interpretation.
Finally you and your friends probably rightly know what the facts are re consent but be aware as to how they may in future be twisted . one of the examples I quoted above was charged as a rape campaign on the basis of assertions from a consenting partner who enjoyed it but said she only consented because he had a temper and would sulk if they didn't have sex , verbatim quote from a different case " I did not realise what he was doing was rape until PC x explained consent to me ." For good reason there is a political drive to take child sex reports seriously , common sense is a great safeguard public interest considerations should protect both children here, but ..
I don't know the legalities of the having sex part or how to deal with it, but someone needs to have a stern word with them about the consequences of taking photos/vids etc of their acts or whatever kids do these days. I read a while ago that they can be charged under child porn laws for creating/distributing material and that could have worse impact on their adult life's than some of the other consequences.
Thanks crankboy.
I think the immediate concern about whether they are likely to be prosecuted for what they are doing and so screwing up his / her life 'legally' is largely allayed. Thanks to all who provided clarity on that.
What is reputation worth.... debatable? The parents can argue that with her, I think most are clear that in more mature years she won't necessarily be that proud of her actions, but to an extent it's her reputation to worry about.
As for facilitating ("aid, abet, counsel or procure"). Tough one. I'd hope in enlightened times that supporting an underage daughter to make sure that if she's determined to have sex that at least it's safe wouldn't be seen as aiding and abetting, and it's good to know that it's a judgement rather than a binary issue. You'd also hope that that judgement doesn't have to get to a trial to decide that, in the same way that stoatsbrother said that police intervention isn't mandatory as they're over 13, can they also 'ignore' this even if it is technically an offence. or does it have to be reported for CPS or others?
