Incest

[Judith Smith]

1) Has the "offence" of incest disappeared?


2) If say an 18 year old step father had sex with a his 16 year old
step-daughter with her consent has he committed an offence? If so - what is it
please.

[The Todal]

Section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003?

[Paul Cummins]

In article <ocd15e5vq12dtg8qm...@4ax.com>,

jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:


> 1) Has the "offence" of incest disappeared?

No

> 2) If say an 18 year old step father had sex with a his 16 year old
> step-daughter with her consent has he committed an offence? If so
> - what is it please.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/39/part/I/crossheading/incest-an
d-related-offences

Yes, it is an offence, in parts of the UK, in certain circumstances.

More information required to provide a more precise answer.


--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Tuesday, 29 January 2019 20:52:24 UTC, Judith Smith wrote:
> 1) Has the "offence" of incest disappeared?
>

Certainly not.

>
> 2) If say an 18 year old step father had sex with a his 16 year old
> step-daughter with her consent has he committed an offence? If so - what is it
> please.

If responsible for her in any way then USI person 16-17 in dependent relationship. The same section which jails teachers for having affairs with sixth formers.

[Sara Merriman]

In article <0137c112-fd7b-42be...@googlegroups.com>, R.

Also, hard to see how incest would the correct offence to charge him
with if they're not related by blood.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Most non blood relationship incest was removed from the statute book some years ago (e.g. sex with a parent's in-laws), but odd cases may remain. They were often got around with private acts of parliament.

[Judith Smith]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 21:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <ocd15e5vq12dtg8qm...@4ax.com>,
>jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:
>
>
>> 1) Has the "offence" of incest disappeared?
>
>No

Please can you point me to the relevant law.

[Judith Smith]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 02:16:00 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
<notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 29 January 2019 20:52:24 UTC, Judith Smith wrote:
>> 1) Has the "offence" of incest disappeared?
>>
>
>Certainly not.

I think you are wrong - but I am not sure - hence the question.

Please can you point me at the law where the word incest is mentioned. If it
is the law in England - then I expect somewhere the offence of *incest* is
mentioned.

I think the Todal has supplied the relevant link - but no mention of the word
"incest" as far as I can see there.

I suspect that Section 25 has replaced "incest" - if in fact that term was
ever used in the legislation: I thought that historically incest was the legal
term - but perhaps not now.

That was the point I was querying.

[Judith Smith]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 21:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <ocd15e5vq12dtg8qm...@4ax.com>,
>jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:
>
>
>> 1) Has the "offence" of incest disappeared?

Sorry - I should have said I am talking about England

[Roland Perry]

In message <bi635e5g4r6296trt...@4ax.com>, at 12:41:46 on
Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Judith Smith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>On Tuesday, 29 January 2019 20:52:24 UTC, Judith Smith wrote:
>>> 1) Has the "offence" of incest disappeared?
>>
>>Certainly not.
>
>I think you are wrong - but I am not sure - hence the question.
>
>Please can you point me at the law where the word incest is mentioned. If it
>is the law in England - then I expect somewhere the offence of *incest* is
>mentioned.
>
>I think the Todal has supplied the relevant link - but no mention of the word
>"incest" as far as I can see there.
>
>I suspect that Section 25 has replaced "incest" - if in fact that term was
>ever used in the legislation: I thought that historically incest was the legal
>term - but perhaps not now.
>
>That was the point I was querying.

Then be more precise in your query. If what you want (or need, or desire
or whatever) is a law with the word "incest" in it, then formulate your
question appropriately.

FWIW, 10 seconds with Google produces (but you need to read those laws
to see what exact words are used to describe the action in question):

o Incitement to commit incest - Criminal Law Act 1977 s54

o Incest other than by man with girl under 13 - Sexual Offences Act
1956 s10 and s11

0 Incest by man with girl under 13 - Sexual Offences Act 1956 s15
--
Roland Perry

[The Todal]

I suppose the incest provisions in the 1956 Act have been repealed and
the word "incest" is no longer used in the modern statute.

Of course, other words in the 1956 Act are no longer acceptable to a
modern society. Such as:

It is an offence for a man to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a
woman whom he knows to be an idiot or imbecile.

It is felony for a person to commit buggery with another person or with
an animal.

It is an offence, subject to the exception mentioned in this section,
for a person to take a woman who is a defective out of the possession of
her parent or guardian against his will....

[Robin]

On 30/01/2019 15:33, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:46:35 +0000, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>> It is an offence, subject to the exception mentioned in this section,
>> for a person to take a woman who is a defective out of the possession of
>> her parent or guardian against his will....
>

> If that is verbatim it's strange the draughters chose to use "his" in place
> of "their" for this third person of indeterminate gender.
>

Perfectly standard drafting for the time - and for many years after.
The time it was drafted. The Interpretation Act provided that "words
importing the masculine gender shall include females"; and also that the
singular include the plural.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Paul Cummins]

In article <kc635etc6k69dbgod...@4ax.com>,
jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:

> *From:* Judith Smith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
> *Date:* Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:34:12 +0000

Someone else has pointed out the relevant legislation already.

[Judith Smith]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:46:35 +0000, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:

Thank you: that was the question that I had - I thought that the word incest
had previously been used but it was now not part of the current legislation: as
you link has shown.

[Judith Smith]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),

agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <kc635etc6k69dbgod...@4ax.com>,
>jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:
>
>> *From:* Judith Smith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>> *Date:* Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:34:12 +0000
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 21:47 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ocd15e5vq12dtg8qm...@4ax.com>,
>> >jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> 1) Has the "offence" of incest disappeared?
>>
>>
>> Sorry - I should have said I am talking about England
>>
>
>Someone else has pointed out the relevant legislation already.

Oh - you mean the legislation that does not mention the word "incest" at all.

[Judith Smith]

Sorry: I should have said that I was talking about the current law - I should
have been more precise of course in case people misunderstood and thought I was
referring to the law say a hundred years ago. I wasn't.

[Mike Bristow]

In article <3ql35e5h1u7gfmvac...@4ax.com>,

Yes exactly so. It makes incest an offence without using the word
incest. Just like nicking stuff is an offence, but the Theft Act
doesn't use that phrase.

--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[Norman Wells]

On 30/01/2019 15:33, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:46:35 +0000, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> wrote:
>

>> It is an offence, subject to the exception mentioned in this section,
>> for a person to take a woman who is a defective out of the possession of
>> her parent or guardian against his will....
>

> If that is verbatim it's strange the draughters chose to use "his" in place
> of "their" for this third person of indeterminate gender.

No, that would be mangling the English language. 'Their' is plural,
never singular.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <3ql35e5h1u7gfmvac...@4ax.com>,

jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:

>
> Oh - you mean the legislation that does not mention the word
> "incest" at all.

Perhaps if you wish to take that angle, you could find me the legislation
that mentions, for example, "Murder" and defines the offence?

Or perhaps the "sex offenders register" in those terms etc.

The Law does not need to use the term you want, to define the offence you
expect.

Assault, for example, does not need someone to be hit.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <qsl35e59ndjmkt16o...@4ax.com>,

jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:

> Sorry: I should have said that I was talking about the current law
> - I should
> have been more precise of course in case people misunderstood and
> thought I was
> referring to the law say a hundred years ago. I wasn't.

You asked if the offence had disappeared.

The answer is no, the offence has not. But, like many things, it has been
refined and renamed.

It's still the same crime.

[TTman]

On 30/01/2019 17:20, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <qsl35e59ndjmkt16o...@4ax.com>,
> jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:
>
>> Sorry: I should have said that I was talking about the current law
>> - I should
>> have been more precise of course in case people misunderstood and
>> thought I was
>> referring to the law say a hundred years ago. I wasn't.
>
> You asked if the offence had disappeared.
>
> The answer is no, the offence has not. But, like many things, it has been
> refined and renamed.
>
> It's still the same crime.
>

So what is the answer to the OP ???

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2019013...@paulcummins.gstgroup.co.uk>, at
17:21:00 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Paul Cummins
<agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> remarked:

>The Law does not need to use the term you want, to define the offence you
>expect.
>
>Assault, for example, does not need someone to be hit.

And "battery" doesn't always require a charge.
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Cummins]

In article <q2ssvn$k2n$1...@dont-email.me>, kraken...@gmail.com (TTman)
wrote:

> So what is the answer to the OP ???

The answer is no, the offence still exists.

[TTman]

On 30/01/2019 23:17, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <q2ssvn$k2n$1...@dont-email.me>, kraken...@gmail.com (TTman)
> wrote:
>
>> So what is the answer to the OP ???
>
> The answer is no, the offence still exists.
>

I actually meant the answer to item 2 from the OP. If that's illegal, it
doesn't seem to fit well with the modern day society. Just my opinion.

[Mike Bristow]

In article <q2uhei$elt$2...@dont-email.me>,

TTman <kraken...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30/01/2019 23:17, Paul Cummins wrote:
>> In article <q2ssvn$k2n$1...@dont-email.me>, kraken...@gmail.com (TTman)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So what is the answer to the OP ???
>>
>> The answer is no, the offence still exists.
>>
> I actually meant the answer to item 2 from the OP. If that's illegal, it
> doesn't seem to fit well with the modern day society. Just my opinion.

Section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 says:

} 25 Sexual activity with a child family member
} (1) A person (A) commits an offence if —
} (a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
} (b)the touching is sexual,
} (c)the relation of A to B is within section 27,
} ....

Section 27 says:
} 27 Family relationships
} (1) The relation of one person (A) to another (B) is within this section if—
} (a) it is within any of subsections (2) to (4), or
}...
} (3) The relation of A to B is within this subsection if A and B
} live or have lived in the same household, or A is or has been
} regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being
} in sole charge of B, and—
} (a) one of them is or has been the other’s step-parent,
} (b) A and B are cousins,
} (c) one of them is or has been the other’s stepbrother or
} stepsister, or
} (d) the parent or present or former foster parent of one
} of them is or has been the other’s foster parent.
...


So, a step parent in the OPs case would probably count in most situations
but not all (there are some other exceptions in sections 28 and 29, but
s27 has an obvious, and probably more common, one).

Cheers,
Mike

--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 18:50:10 UTC, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <3ql35e5h1u7gfmvac...@4ax.com>,
> jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:
>
> >
> > Oh - you mean the legislation that does not mention the word
> > "incest" at all.
>
> Perhaps if you wish to take that angle, you could find me the legislation
> that mentions, for example, "Murder" and defines the offence?

Offences against the Person Act 1861.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2019-01-30, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> No, that would be mangling the English language. 'Their' is plural,
> never singular.

You are incorrect. Singular 'they' has been standard for many hundreds
of years. You would do better to complain about singular 'you'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

[Judith Smith]

she heard someone blow their nose loudly

Wrong yet again Norman

[Judith Smith]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 23:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <q2ssvn$k2n$1...@dont-email.me>, kraken...@gmail.com (TTman)
>wrote:
>
>> So what is the answer to the OP ???
>
>The answer is no, the offence still exists.

It does not.

Please define the offence of incest and where it is defined

You really need to be precise with these legal points.

[TTman]

very clear, thanks. The one missing bit above is that ages are specified
in the act... so that clarifies everything. I (reasonably?) assumed
that it did not apply to anyone over the age of 16.

[Roger Hayter]

I think the law quoted in this thread demonstrates that most incest is
still a crime, even if no longer called incest in the statutes. The one
question I am left with is whether a 17 year old having a sexual
relationship with a parent commits a crime when the said parent is
committing a crime under Section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003,
i.e. is abusing his supervisory position. And that's only because I
probably haven't read the quoted bits properly.



--

Roger Hayter

[Paul Cummins]

In article <c82bb2d7-a719-4174...@googlegroups.com>,

notya...@gmail.com (R. Mark Clayton) wrote:

> > Perhaps if you wish to take that angle, you could find me the
> legislation
> > that mentions, for example, "Murder" and defines the offence?
>
> Offences against the Person Act 1861.

The offence is defined by referenceing the offence, so no, that doesn't
define the offence of murder.

[Judith Smith]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:21 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <3ql35e5h1u7gfmvac...@4ax.com>,
>jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh - you mean the legislation that does not mention the word
>> "incest" at all.
>
>Perhaps if you wish to take that angle, you could find me the legislation
>that mentions, for example, "Murder" and defines the offence?
>
>Or perhaps the "sex offenders register" in those terms etc.
>
>The Law does not need to use the term you want, to define the offence you
>expect.
>
>Assault, for example, does not need someone to be hit.

Yes - even the dictionary knows that : "a concerted attempt to do something
demanding."

Sorry - you have failed to understand: there used to be an offence of "incest"
- there no longer is as the Todal's link makes clear.

Sexual Offences Act 1956

10 Incest by a man

(1)It is an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman whom he
knows to be his grand-daughter, daughter, sister or mother.

I suspect that if someone was arrested for incest, formally accused of incest
in the interview and admitted the offence of incest - and then were charged
with it, their "solicitor" would be in trouble.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <t6r55edbupud8k40h...@4ax.com>,

jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:

> Please define the offence of incest and where it is defined

This has already been pointed out a number of times.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <opb65ed1n5m8hiiqc...@4ax.com>,

jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:

> Sexual Offences Act 1956
>
> 10 Incest by a man
>
> (1)It is an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a
> woman whom he
> knows to be his grand-daughter, daughter, sister or mother.

The offence is as described in section 10(1) which does not use the word
"incest" but describes the offence.

As someone else has pointed out, if I arrested you for stealing a car,
rather than "theft of a motor vehicle", it would make no difference to
the validity of the arrest.

There is no offence of Murder defined in statute either.

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2019013...@paulcummins.gstgroup.co.uk>, at

19:14:00 on Thu, 31 Jan 2019, Paul Cummins
<agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> remarked:

>As someone else has pointed out, if I arrested you for stealing a car,
>rather than "theft of a motor vehicle", it would make no difference to
>the validity of the arrest.

TWOC, Shirley?
--
Roland Perry

[Judith Smith]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 16:45 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <t6r55edbupud8k40h...@4ax.com>,
>jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:
>
>> Please define the offence of incest and where it is defined
>
>This has already been pointed out a number of times.

No it hasn't.

There is no offence of "incest" in England.

If there is - then please define the offence.

[Roger Hayter]

Only wrt joyriders, not car thieves.

--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Incest is most certainly an offence in England (and Wales!), although
the statute does not use the term. The interviewing police officer is
very likely to use the word incest, even though he will not write it in
the formal charge.

If you mean there is no offence that is called incest in the relevant
legislation then you may be right; I would have to say I find this not
very significant myself.


--

Roger Hayter

[Paul Cummins]

In article <2tX8$f4UQ2...@perry.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:

> >As someone else has pointed out, if I arrested you for stealing a

> >car,rather than "theft of a motor vehicle", it would make no

> >difference to the validity of the arrest.
>
> TWOC, Shirley?

Nope, that's a separate offence. TWOC is joyriding, and giving it back.

If someone insures my car, takes it intending to return it, uses it, and
returns it serviced and full of petrol with a contribution to costs in
the dashboard, when I didn't consent, that's still TWOC.

Theft is dishonest permanent deprivation, or deprivation with that intent.

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.20190131...@paulcummins.gstgroup.co.uk>, at
22:35:00 on Thu, 31 Jan 2019, Paul Cummins
<agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> remarked:

>In article <2tX8$f4UQ2...@perry.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
>wrote:
>
>> >As someone else has pointed out, if I arrested you for stealing a
>> >car,rather than "theft of a motor vehicle", it would make no
>> >difference to the validity of the arrest.
>>
>> TWOC, Shirley?
>
>Nope, that's a separate offence. TWOC is joyriding, and giving it back.

The whole point of TWOC is that adresses the loophole of a joyrider
saying "well, I *was* going to give it back..."

>If someone insures my car, takes it intending to return it, uses it, and
>returns it serviced and full of petrol with a contribution to costs in
>the dashboard, when I didn't consent, that's still TWOC.
>
>Theft is dishonest permanent deprivation, or deprivation with that intent.
>
>

--

Roland Perry

[Paul Cummins]

In article <1o2aj2m.144oqp86vap6kN%ro...@hayter.org>, ro...@hayter.org

(Roger Hayter) wrote:

> Incest is most certainly an offence in England (and Wales!),
> although the statute does not use the term. The interviewing police
> officer is very likely to use the word incest, even though he will not
> write it in the formal charge.

Likewise Child Sexual Abuse is not defined as a crime. The act defines a
number of things which ARE a crime though, which fit under the umbrella.

> If you mean there is no offence that is called incest in the
> relevant legislation then you may be right; I would have to say I
> find this not very significant myself.

The word is used in legislation, as has been pointed out by several. The
fact that the legislation has been repealed and replaced by new acts
describing the same offence in the same terms does not change the nature
of the offence, even if the actual word "incest" is not used.

It's a bit like describing an offender as a Paedophile, where being a
paedophile is not an offence, and never has been, anywhere in the UK.

[Mark Goodge]

There is no offence of "incest" in England, just as there are no
offences of "shoplifting", "mugging" and "drink driving" in England.
However, if you engage in any of the practices commonly described by
those terms, you are liable to be prosecuted under the relevent
legislation using the terminology currently used in statute.

Morte generally, lots of offences have colloquial or archaic
terminology that is not found, or no longer found, in statute. But
that doesn't mean they have ceased to be offences.

Mark

[Judith Smith]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:14 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <opb65ed1n5m8hiiqc...@4ax.com>,
>jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:
>
>> Sexual Offences Act 1956
>>
>> 10 Incest by a man
>>
>> (1)It is an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a
>> woman whom he
>> knows to be his grand-daughter, daughter, sister or mother.
>
>The offence is as described in section 10(1) which does not use the word
>"incest" but describes the offence.

Yes - and it has the title Incest.

That is what the offence *used* to be called. There is no offence of *incest*
these days unless you can point me to it of course.

[Roland Perry]

In message <ipg85e1819nn6ucmg...@4ax.com>, at 08:30:52 on
Fri, 1 Feb 2019, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:

>My recollect is that was mere window dressing and it was added to the Theft
>Act in order to defeat perps who had been using joyriding as a defence
>against a charge of theft. I wonder whether anyone tried claiming they had
>only been joyriding someone else's Rolex or iPhone.

Maybe "borrowing" a lawn mower? But people get emotive about cars.
--
Roland Perry

[brianwh...@hotmail.com]

There is, it seems, now no offence *called* incest. There is still, however, an offence *of* incest, insofar as if you indulge in incest you are committing an offence. Your original question was "Has the offence of incest disappeared?". The answer is clearly "no". Had you asked "Has the offence called incest disappeared?", the answer would have been "yes".

[Judith Smith]

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:43:27 -0800 (PST), brianwh...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, 1 February 2019 15:03:46 UTC, Judith Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:14 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>> agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <opb65ed1n5m8hiiqc...@4ax.com>,
>> >jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk (Judith Smith) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sexual Offences Act 1956
>> >>
>> >> 10 Incest by a man
>> >>
>> >> (1)It is an offence for a man to have sexual intercourse with a
>> >> woman whom he
>> >> knows to be his grand-daughter, daughter, sister or mother.
>> >
>> >The offence is as described in section 10(1) which does not use the word
>> >"incest" but describes the offence.
>>
>> Yes - and it has the title Incest.
>>
>> That is what the offence *used* to be called. There is no offence of *incest*
>> these days unless you can point me to it of course.
>
>There is, it seems, now no offence *called* incest.

Many thanks

[R. Mark Clayton]

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 previously mentioned

s.6 "it shall be sufficient in any Indictment for Murder to charge that the Defendant did feloniously, wilfully, and of his Malice aforethought kill and murder the Deceased "

[Mark Goodge]

That doesn't define murder, though. On the contrary, it's a bit
tautologous - the offence of murder requries that you kill and murder
someone. As opposed, presumably, to murdering them without killing
them.

Mark

[The Todal]

But you could of course kill them without murdering them. In self
defence, or accidentally, etc.

Murder is a common law offence and needs no definition. However it was
formerly a common law rule that in offences of murder or manslaughter
the death had to occur within a year and a day, and that latter part of
the rule was abolished in the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996.

[Roland Perry]

In message <9e2c5e5q97iumhibp...@4ax.com>, at 21:23:02 on
Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>>Offences Against the Person Act 1861 previously mentioned
>>
>>s.6 "it shall be sufficient in any Indictment for Murder to charge that
>>the Defendant did feloniously, wilfully, and of his Malice aforethought
>>kill and murder the Deceased "
>
>That doesn't define murder, though. On the contrary, it's a bit
>tautologous - the offence of murder requries that you kill and murder
>someone. As opposed, presumably, to murdering them without killing
>them.

That activity is alive and well in the work of various tribute-bands!
--
Roland Perry

[David]

Reading through all this it seems to mainly miss the point that the
traditional meaning of "Incest" comes from the legal and religious (for
some religions) restriction against having sex with a blood relative which
can lead to offspring with amplified genetic defects (see royal
dynasties). IIRC you used to have to get approval from the Church before
you could marry a cousin (but no idea if there was a legal equivalent).

Reading the above quote, I am relieved to see that Grannies were always in
with a chance. I assume there may be an equivalent offence of Incest by a
Woman which covers that off, though. Great grand-daughters also.
Hmmm....assuming that you breed as soon as you are of legal age (not
always the case) then child @16, grand-child @33, great grand-child @50,
great-great-grandchild @63. Noting that by point genetic dilution will
have mainly removed the direct risk of enhancing familial genetic
recessives. Likely there is more risk interbreeding with nephews, nieces,
cousins etc.

If I am reading all this correctly, once you are both above the age of
consent and not in a dependent relationship you can shag family members to
your heart's content as long as you don't scare the stock.

Comments about step-daughters illustrate that the offences under
discussion relate to having sex with a vulnerable/under age family member
and so to me don't fall into the area of incest but into a wider category
of sexual offences. Didn't Woody Allen marry his step-daughter?

I assume that since the availability of fairly reliable contraception and
abortion on demand the risks of an unwanted and defective child have
receded enough for the specific genetics based restrictions to be regarded
as outdated.

Wandering even further from the point, since the onset of (reasonably)
reliable DNA sequencing it has been suggested that up to 10% of children
may have been fathered by someone other than the expected father. This
does make me wonder if this could be the basis of a defence under the old
law - that is, DNA sequencing shows that she is not my genetic offspring
so no offence of Incest has taken place - and so the old law from 1956
referenced above has been rendered more or less pointless.

TL:DR - it seems that Incest (as traditionally defined as a genetic
safeguard) is no longer an offence. Offences which protect the under age
and vulnerable take no recognition of genetic relationships.

Cheers



Dave R


--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 7 Pro x64

[The Todal]

On 02/02/2019 21:40, The Todal wrote:

>
> Murder is a common law offence and needs no definition.

That was careless of me. I meant, needs no statutory definition.

The legal definition of manslaughter: the killing of a human being under
the Queen's Peace, the death occurring within a year and a day (the bit
about year and a day removed by statute in 1996)

Murder is manslaughter with malice aforethought.

And "malice aforethought" is not defined in any statute.

[Roger Hayter]

David <wib...@btinternet.com> wrote:

snip

> TL:DR - it seems that Incest (as traditionally defined as a genetic
> safeguard) is no longer an offence. Offences which protect the under age
> and vulnerable take no recognition of genetic relationships.
>
> Cheers
>

You are mistaken. Quotes upthread make it clear that incest as
traditionally defined is still an offence.

Genetic considerations apart, a strong taboo against inter-sibling sex
is necessary to make family life remotely possible, in my opinion.



--

Roger Hayter

[David]

Could you kindly point me to that (as I understand the 1956 act no longer
applies)?

My read through seemed to show me references which were age related but
didn't seem to include, say, a couple in their 50s.

Thanks

[Paul Cummins]

In article <9e2c5e5q97iumhibp...@4ax.com>,

use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote:

> That doesn't define murder, though. On the contrary, it's a bit
> tautologous - the offence of murder requries that you kill and
> murder someone. As opposed, presumably, to murdering them without
> killing them.

Exactly my point.

How can you be charged with Murder when the definition of murder is that
you murder.

[Robin]

On 03/02/2019 11:55, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <9e2c5e5q97iumhibp...@4ax.com>,
> use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote:
>
>> That doesn't define murder, though. On the contrary, it's a bit
>> tautologous - the offence of murder requries that you kill and
>> murder someone. As opposed, presumably, to murdering them without
>> killing them.
>
> Exactly my point.
>
> How can you be charged with Murder when the definition of murder is that
> you murder.
>
>

The provision seems to me to make perfect sense. It is essentially
procedural. It has nothing to do with the meaning of murder. It is all
about what makes a valid indictment for murder.





--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Roger Hayter]

David <wib...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 11:21:18 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
>
> > David <wib...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >> TL:DR - it seems that Incest (as traditionally defined as a genetic
> >> safeguard) is no longer an offence. Offences which protect the under
> >> age and vulnerable take no recognition of genetic relationships.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >>
> >>
> > You are mistaken. Quotes upthread make it clear that incest as
> > traditionally defined is still an offence.
> >
> > Genetic considerations apart, a strong taboo against inter-sibling sex
> > is necessary to make family life remotely possible, in my opinion.
>
> Could you kindly point me to that (as I understand the 1956 act no longer
> applies)?
>
> My read through seemed to show me references which were age related but
> didn't seem to include, say, a couple in their 50s.
>
> Thanks
>
>

This may be repetition as, with the tools available, the legislation is
quicker to search than the thread.

Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 64
Sex with an adult relative: penetration

(1)A person aged 16 or over (A) [F1(subject to subsection (3A))] commits
an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates another person's vagina or anus with a
part of his body or anything else, or penetrates another person's mouth
with his penis,

(b)the penetration is sexual,

(c)the other person (B) is aged 18 or over,

(d)A is related to B in a way mentioned in subsection (2), and

(e)A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that he is related
to B in that way.

(2)The ways that A may be related to B are as parent, grandparent,
child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle,
aunt, nephew or niece.

There are some more recent amendments re adoptive children but i think
otherwise this is current law. Clearly the law does not intend
differing actual paternity to be a defence though.




--

Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <1o2fe84.156ffceuc2ml4N%ro...@hayter.org>, at 14:18:29 on
Sun, 3 Feb 2019, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

> (d)A is related to B in a way mentioned in subsection (2), and
>
> (e)A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that he is related
>to B in that way.
>
>(2)The ways that A may be related to B are as parent, grandparent,
>child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle,
>aunt, nephew or niece.
>
>There are some more recent amendments re adoptive children but i think
>otherwise this is current law. Clearly the law does not intend
>differing actual paternity to be a defence though.

The use of the word 'Parent' rather than 'Father' would presumably tend
to rule out being excluded from the rule by a negative DNA test.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

P.S. Section 65 says that the person penetrated also (with exceptions)
commits a crime. It also makes clear, as does Section 64 actually, that
homosexual incest is an equal crime to heterosexual, and both section 64
and section 65 offences can be committed by women. This obviously is
not all justified on eugenic grounds.

--

Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Not really, you can be an adoptive father or natural father anyway, and
legally a man is assumed to be father of his wife's child. What
"Parent" rules in is mothers!

--

Roger Hayter

[Judith Smith]

On 3 Feb 2019 10:56:48 GMT, David <wib...@btinternet.com> wrote:

<snip>

>TL:DR - it seems that Incest (as traditionally defined as a genetic
>safeguard) is no longer an offence. Offences which protect the under age
>and vulnerable take no recognition of genetic relationships.

Spot on.

[Judith Smith]

So - is it your understanding that a 20 year old male can have consensual
sexual intercourse with a 16 year old step-daughter who lives with her mother
and step father.

It certainly is not incest.

[Roger Hayter]

If he had adopted her it would be incest under section 64 as amended by
more recent legislation. Othewise it would be illegal under another
section quoted earlier in the thread.

> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--

Roger Hayter

[David]

Sadly, already refuted using information not previously posted.

I didn't really fancy my brother, anyway.

[Roger Hayter]

David <wib...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 16:48:33 +0000, Judith Smith wrote:
>
> > On 3 Feb 2019 10:56:48 GMT, David <wib...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >>TL:DR - it seems that Incest (as traditionally defined as a genetic
> >>safeguard) is no longer an offence. Offences which protect the under age
> >>and vulnerable take no recognition of genetic relationships.
> >
> >
> >
> > Spot on.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> Sadly, already refuted using information not previously posted.
>
> I didn't really fancy my brother, anyway.
>
> Cheers
>

I had a sudden insight about this; if incest remained a crime only
between members of the opposite sex it would be possible to evade
prosecution by one party electing to change official sex before
embarking on the relationship. I suspect I am not the first to think of
this.

--

Roger Hayter