Well-Pressed

Ched Evans had sex while being watched by his brother. His brother! Vile. Just vile.

But his case, this "grooming" business, and the coming into effect of the new prostitution law in Northern Ireland, provide an opportunity to tidy up the shambolic law on sexual offences.

First, the age of consent should effectively be raised to 18, by making it a criminal offence for anyone to commit any sexual act with or upon any person under that age who was more than two years younger than herself, or to incite any such person to commit any such act with or upon her or any third party anywhere in the world.

The maximum sentence would be twice the difference in age, to the month where it was less than three years, or a life sentence where that difference was at least five years.

No different rules for certain professions, which are being used against male, but not female, 18-year-olds looking after female, but not male, Sixth Formers visiting universities. Just that.

And no provision, as at present, for boys to be prosecuted at any age, even if they are younger than the girls involved, whereas girls have to be 16. Yes, that is the law. And use is made of it.

The sometimes enforced financial liability of male victims for pregnancies resulting from their sexual abuse ought also to be ruled out, at least unless they decided as adults to seek to make contact with their children. Again, yes, really, this does exist. How's that for victim-blaming?

Secondly, it ought to be made a criminal offence for anyone aged 18 or over to buy or sell sex, with equal sentencing on both sides.

No persecution of girls whose lives have already been so bad that they have become prostitutes. No witch-hunting of boys desperate to lose their virginities. But the treatment of men and women as moral, intellectual and legal equals.

Thirdly, the replacement of the offences of rape, serious sexual assault, and sexual assault with aggravating circumstances to the general categories of assault, enabling the sentences to be doubled. The sex of either party would be immaterial.

There should be no anonymity either for adult accusers or for adult complainants. Either we have an open system of justice, or we do not. There must be no suggestion, in this or in any other matter, of any reversal of the burden of proof.

And fourthly, the classification as obscene of material depicting acts that were themselves illegal, or which was reasonably likely to incite or encourage such acts. Sentencing would be the same as for the illegal act in question in each case.

Sadly, rather less can be done about Jean Hatchet's hatred of those who are, "often acne-ridden, but scrubbed, hair product well-applied, cheesy grin liberally spread, arms around identikit mates. In football kits or the default polo shirt. Well-pressed by their mum no doubt."

Those are the main victims both of violent crime and of low-level harassment such as being arbitrarily stopped by the Police or not allowed into places. They are objects of constant media ridicule; realistic depiction of their lives, or even the playing of them by actors their own age, does not exist.

They are universally assumed to have little intellectual and no emotional life. They are not even allowed to join their fleeing mothers in such women's refuges as have survived this wretched Government, with no one caring if they then have to go back to violent homes or sleep on the streets.

From a very early age, they are harangued about how their bodies are supposed to work by people who do not have male bodies and who have often had barely any contact with them, with, undeniably, extremely negative experiences of such contact when they have had it.

Ask those acne-ridden, cheesy-grinning identikits how "privileged" they feel.

But rather less can be done about the Hatchet attitude to them, which when expressed institutionally can lead to actual deaths, than can be done about the foregoing.

And sadly, rather less can also be done about people who have sex while being watched by their siblings. Vile. Just vile.