Hell, a child cannot play sports without parental consent, but they can consent to sex with a pedophile groomer? WTF? In my world, children can't consent to really anything which is why parents need to sign permission slips, waivers, releases, etc. This is unconscionable! Victims already feel like the abuse is their fault and this law reinforces that belief. Compensation is not enough to heal victims but it could help to pay for the years of therapy as well as making them feel validated. It's already difficult to prove cases of abuse and now victims' testimonies will be questioned again when some stranger tries to figure out the thought process of a child. Again, WTF?

I haven't checked with other states but look at Utah, No wonder why it is 5th worst state for child trafficking

UTAH LAW TREATED HUMAN TRAFFICKING VICTIMS, INCLUDING CHILDREN, AS PROSTITUTES UP UNTIL 2015 https://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/tag/human-trafficking

Cases where trafficking of a child may not result in charges for human trafficking There are a few reasons why cases where children were trafficked for sex may not result in charges for human trafficking of a child:

• Human Trafficking of a Child is a new area of criminal justice. It was only added to the Utah criminal code in 2015. In the old model of viewing these cases, many times the child being sex trafficked was arrested for prostitution and adjudicated delinquent in the juvenile justice system. Only in the last year did Utah pass a “safe harbor” provision for children engaged in the sex trade that clarifies they should be treated as victims and referred to services.

• While the safe harbor provision has helped protect child victims of sex trafficking from improper criminal charges, the criminal justice field at large still has a long way to go in shifting from viewing this crime into a human trafficking lens. In some jurisdictions, these cases are still investigated through the lens of prostitution and not human trafficking. Sometimes suspects are charged with exploiting prostitution even in cases where children were sex trafficked.

• Another component of the safe harbor philosophy is that we should avoid re-victimizing those preyed on by sex traffickers by pressuring them to participate in the criminal justice process. In our office, we often prosecute defendants who we have reason to believe are traffickers with other related offenses, either because the victim does not want to participate in our criminal case or to protect them from having to do so if we can secure justice through other charges.

The Guardian is corrupt and should be archived in the OP. It doesn't deserve our support. Please keep this in mind for future posts.

Also, please see:

https://voat.co/v/news/comments/1315115

This is because it will cost too much money for them, they know the amount of victims that are going to come forward when pizzagate is fully exposed! Sick demons running the countries!

Unbelievable and relentless.

https://archive.fo/5HyFt | https://files.catbox.moe/gwdkd3.png :

Revised UK child sexual 'consent' rules provoke backlash | UK news | The Guardian

'It is a criminal offence for a person to engage in sexual activity with someone under 13 regardless of the circumstances, and to engage in sexual activity with someone aged 13 to 16 unless certain narrow defences apply. '

'It is illegal to have sexual activity with anyone under 16 but the CICA does not automatically make payments to all victims. '

'The scheme recognises that there may be situations where a person aged under 16 has ‘in fact’ consented to sexual activity. '

'Someone from the Ministry of Justice must step in to amend the rules on consent.”A CICA spokesperson said: “Child sexual abuse is abhorrent. '

'There can only be consent ‘in fact’ where you are satisfied that consent was freely and voluntarily given. '

This has been an automated message.