According to The Telegraph, a chief constable has described sex with underage children as a "grey area".
Terry Grange, chief constable of Dyfed-Powys Police and the spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers on child protection and managing sex offenders, said he believed paedophiles should be classed as men who had sex with pre-pubescents.
What he "believes" is irrelevant. What the law states is what is important.
The UK law states the age of consent is 16 and anyone who has sex with a younger child has committed an offence.
And is a paedophile (and that includes women who have sex with a minor), but Mr Grange doesn't think so.
In an interview with the Sunday Times, Mr Grange said men who had sex with children should not be classed as paedophiles if their victim was between 13 and 15.
Mr Grange also told the newspaper that the law on child pornography should apply accordingly.
What does that mean? Does Mr Grange think it would be OK, for example, for porn sites to feature models between 13 and 15? Where would he draw the line? Would it be OK for The Sun to have a 14 year old page three girl?
He added: "It's much more of an issue for me if a child is under 13.
"I think the closer they get to 16, the more it becomes a grey area and I think everyone in the field of dealing with sexual health and sexual activity acknowledges that."
That's because most of the people involved in dealing with sexual health and sexual activity are deranged liberal progressives who are so wrapped in their own doctrine they can not see the damage they are doing to society.
It's not important whether sex with a 13 year old or a 12 year old is an "issue" for Mr Grange anymore than it is important whether a killer's victim is 25 or 26. It is illegal and Mr Grange's job is to catch the criminals and gather the evidence for a successful prosecution. Nor is it a "grey area". The law is quite clear. Sex with anyone below the age of 16 is illegal - what is it about that that Mr Grange does not understand?
This is the problem, for me, with the age of consent in modern times. The liberal progressives blur the distinction between what is legal and illegal - so sex with 13 year olds becomes acceptable even though the age of consent is 16. I expect Mr Grange's thinking is not uncommon amongst the liberal progressives who dominate our judicial system too and we've reached a point where it's now considered acceptable, by them, to have sex with children under 16.
The next step will be to lower the age of consent to 13, then 12 then 11 - all the time blurring the line until we have a situation where sex with 8 year olds is considered acceptable. Mr Grange's comments are the thin end of a very disturbing wedge.
What they should be doing is raising the age of consent to 18 and introducing a law of "statutory rape" for anyone over the age of 18 having sex with anyone under the age of 18 combined with another law of "mutual assault" for when both parties are under 18.
Sex with children is not acceptable and people of authority like Mr Grange should not be sending out messages like this which effectively legitimises sex with minors.