David Paisley has recently abandoned his High Court action against me for, amongst other things, calling him a paedophile enabler. This is one in a series of articles which points out why his action was doomed from the start. He has made enough paedophile enabling tweets to make the whole thing laughable. This article covers perhaps his darkest and most concerning thread, in which he discusses a “personal” story about the age of consent. Buckle up - there are some really startling revelations.
UK Law on Age of Consent
As of 2022, the age of consent in the United Kingdom is currently sixteen – equal for gay and straight sexual encounters. It is a criminal offence for anyone to be involved in any kind of sexual act (including kissing) with anyone under the age of 13, on the basis that anybody under the age of 13 lacks the capacity to consent to any kind of sexual activity. It is a criminal offence for girls and boys aged 13, 14 and 15 to have sex with anyone else aged 13, 14 or 15. This applies to both parties, whether they initiated the activity or not.
Prosecutions in such cases are rare although social service intervention to discover the source of the inappropriate sexualisation is possible. Where the children are younger, there is a larger age gap, the child is has additional vulnerabilities, or there is coercion, prosecution is more likely.
“Sexual activity” is narrowly defined and applies only to penetration of the mouth, vagina or anus with the penis, and to touching of the penis, vagina or anus with the mouth. This means that anybody having sex with somebody under the age of sixteen (or eighteen if there is a relationship of authority between the two) is committing a criminal offence. Children of 13, 14 and 15 engaging in any other kind of sexual activity with others in this age group are not committing a sexual offence.
Somebody of sixteen or older engaging a child of 13, 14 or 15 in other types of sexual activity may be guilty of several attendant offences such as meeting a child following sexual grooming, and sexual communications with a child. It is a criminal offence for anybody over the age of sixteen to have sex with anybody under the age of sixteen. In this case, only the older person is breaking the law.
Prior to 2001, in Scotland, the age of consent was unequal – 16 for heterosexuals, and 18 for gay men. This meant that if two males under the age of 18 engaged in sexual activity with each other, they were both committing an offence, but the older participant would likely be viewed as an “instigator” and would have been more likely to be prosecuted. The law has since been equalised.
When communicating about age of consent laws, especially to an audience that includes children, it is vital to be accurate, clear and honest, and to avoid contributing to legal misconceptions that hold wide sway.
For example, it is common knowledge that “Romeo and Juliet” type relationships (between peers of e.g. 15 and 16 years old) are unlikely to be prosecuted. However, under UK law, children cannot consent to sex, and anybody over the age of 16 engaging a child in sexual activity may end up receiving a custodial sentence and being put on the sex offenders register. Additionally, if adults allow children to engage in sexual activity, with their knowledge, and help them to do this, they can be charged with secondary participation offences.
Alba and Paisley’s Thread
In April 2021, a candidate for the Scottish political party “Alba” was publicly criticised for claiming that two Scottish LGBT groups were campaigning to reduce the age of consent to as young as ten. The reasoning of the candidate, Margaret Lynch, was that the groups had signed up to the ILGA World document. This included making a commitment to the group’s “feminist” declaration which contained the following text:
a. “Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use.”
b. And also, “End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms.”
This text was believed by the Alba candidate to mean that the groups would campaign for lower age of consent laws – and end the “criminalisation of adolescents’ sexuality.” In response to a twitter furore about this, Paisley tweeted a thread about his relationship with his boyfriend, when he was seventeen and his boyfriend was fifteen. It is reproduced in full here (again, without screenshots as he may get the post removed if it contains a picture of him).
“It has been interesting watching Alba supporters freak out about the idea of not criminalising adolescent sexuality, the automatic assumption that this means LGBT+ groups are promoting lowering the age of consent, which is untrue. But here’s a wee personal story about AOC.”
“When I was a teen my first boyfriend & I were both under the age of consent, which was 18 at the time. We met at a youth group offered by LGBT+ Youth Scotland, this one in Glasgow at the Gay and Lesbian Center. He was about to turn 16, and I just turned 17.”
“We had a very teenager courtship, holding hands for the first time in the cinema watching Beautiful Thing. He even came on holiday with me & my family, my younger bother [sic] and his friend claiming the only twin room and leaving us with the double bed, which we feigned upset about.”
“Things changed when we stayed at his home, he lived with his dad and the morning after I stayed over his dad barged into the bathroom and found us together, beating us up and throwing us out of the flat. My boyfriend grabbed a rucksack, his bike and we left, bruised and scared.”
“We slept rough on the streets of Glasgow for a few nights. it was cold, difficult dragging his bike around, so we stopped in train stations to stay out of the rain. We didn’t know what to do, we were both underage which meant we were afraid of the police and being caught together.”
“Eventually, we called a mutual friend from youth group, who took us in and gave us tea. Not long after arriving the police came to the door, which was instantly terrifying. We could have been charged and placed on the sex offenders register for life, I could have gone to prison.”
“Instead, they were just worried for my boyfriend’s safety, as a child sleeping rough. They got a call from his mum and wanted to make sure he was ok. he went with them and I made my way back to Falkirk, where my mum was waiting, fearful as the police had called looking for us.”
“I explained the parts the police hadn’t, that his dad beat us and threw us out, I didn’t say why. I was still pretending we were “just good friends,” and my mum, who clearly knew, asked no more questions. My boyfriend ended up in care until he turned 16 as he couldn’t return home.”
“I share this so people have a chance to learn and understand what it’s like being LGBT+ and having your adolescent relationships criminalised and discriminated against by unequal laws, by a society that rejects who we are. That sees LGBT+ love and intimacy as wrong and criminal.”
“Those from the Alba Party so triggered and incensed by discussions of adolescent relationships have no idea of the lived reality of LGBT+ young people across the world, unfairly treated by unequal laws. No young person should be criminalised for consensual experiences with their peers.”
“The outcry comes from people who have never had their sexuality criminalised unfairly or disproportionately. it stems from ignorance and wilful misunderstanding. It stems from fear and mistrust of LGBT+ groups and individuals, that we are a threat and danger to young people.”
“This is the same old homophobia I faced in the 90s repackaged, with barely a lick of paint to disguise its rotten foundations. it started with toleration for transphobia and it now extends to fear &bigotry directed at the whole LGBT+ community. It has no place in a modern Scotland.”
“The Alba Party has been founded on a bedrock of intolerance. if it wants to be taken seriously it would do well to address & rout out the very clear obvious anti LGBT+ rhetoric being spouted by candidates and supporters. They likely won’t and I hope the voting public takes note.”
“One final thing. 24% of homeless people identify as LGBT+. Many thousands of homeless young people sleep rough in the UK each year. If you can, please do donate to @aktcharity who do essential work supporting LGBT+ homeless young people.”
Those readers alive to safeguarding may already have noticed a few “yikes” moments in that thread. The rest of this article articulates a few of those “yikes,” but they come in layers in this thread. I could have written an article twice this length at least on all the things that are “yikes” just in this short vignette.
Analysis
The thread starts badly. “It’s been interesting to watch Alba supporters freak out about the idea of not criminalising adolescent sexuality.” On the surface of it, this seems inoffensive, but it is necessary to parse the language slightly, to understand Paisley’s meaning.
“Freak out”[1] means “have an unjustified and disproportionately emotional reaction to.” “Adolescent sexuality” in this context unhelpfully elides two groups – the under sixteens and the over sixteens. Nobody is “freaking out” about the over sixteens having sex. The term “sexuality” is very unhelpful when discussing the law. Sexuality is not subject to the law; sexual crimes against children are.
Children who are the victims of sex crimes are already “decriminalised.” They are almost never prosecuted for sexual relationships with each other, and except in very rare cases, they are regarded as the victims, not the perpetrators of sex crimes in the law.
Children of 13, 14 and 15 who have sex with each other are technically committing a criminal offence, but they are almost never prosecuted. The only people who are currently “criminalised” in a meaningful sense are those over the age of consent, who are committing sex crimes against children under the age of consent, who do not have the capacity to consent to them.
The proper meaning of Paisley’s sentence, without all the elision, euphemism and handwaving, is “it’s been interesting to watch Alba supporters have an unjustified and disproportionately emotional reaction to the idea of not criminalising those over the age of sixteen who commit statutory rape and other sex crimes against the under 16s.”
It is not possible to draw any other meaning from Paisley’s words. He cannot be mocking Alba supporters for “freaking out” about the decriminalisation of children having sex with each other, as they are not criminalised. Likewise, those over the age of consent having sex with each other are not criminalised.
To reiterate - the only possibility is that Paisley is shaming Alba supporters for “freaking out” about the decriminalisation of those over the age of consent, committing sex crimes against those under the age of consent. This is not a one off. He repeats his shaming theme later in the thread. “Those from Alba Party so triggered and incensed by discussions of adolescent relationships…”
Unfortunately, the rest of Paisley’s thread is instructive as to his likely reasons for making these arguments.
A Startling Admission
The rest of the thread is designed to read like a tragic story, but is, in fact, Paisley’s admission to a variety of offences, including sex offences, against a minor child. Incredibly, Paisley knows exactly what he is admitting to, and yet went ahead with his thread. “I could have gone to prison,” he said. For a public figure to make this series of admissions is startling.
He attempts to minimise his actions by blaming unequal age of consent laws that were in place in Scotland at the time for the fact that his actions were criminalised. But this is a self-serving, conniving lie.
The Procurator Fiscal in Scotland, if invited to consider charges relating to Paisley’s activities as described in the thread under today’s equal age of consent legislation might consider:
a. Sexual assault of a minor;
b. Offences under the Child Abduction Act 1984 (why didn’t Paisley and his boyfriend simply call Paisley’s mother, for example, instead of absconding and sleeping rough?);
c. Grooming offences under the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005, including travelling to meet a child for sexual purposes.
d. Charges for Paisley’s mother such as arranging and facilitating a child sex offence, under section 14 of the Rape and Sexual Offences Act 2003.
To reiterate, this is not offences that would have been offences back then under unequal laws - but offences that would be offences today under equal laws in Scotland. In fact, equalising the age of consent made it more obvious that there was, in the situation Paisley describes, a perpetrator and a victim.
If that was not bad enough, anybody reading the thread critically must have doubts as to the credibility of Paisley’s claims regarding his boyfriend’s age. Paisley states that when the pair met at a youth group, the boyfriend was “just about to turn sixteen.” The story ends with the boyfriend turning sixteen, whilst he was in care. However, between those two points, the following things happen:
e. The pair form a relationship and have a “courtship,” which implies that it is more than a few dates.
f. The relationship develops into a sexual one.
g. Paisley introduces the boyfriend to his mother.
h. The mother develops enough of a relationship with the boyfriend that she invites him on holiday.
i. The mother develops enough of a relationship with the family of the boy that they agree to place her in this position of trust and take their son on holiday.
j. The mother books a holiday including the boyfriend, and also Paisley’s brother’s friend, which would suggest either some co-ordinating of calendars, or some waiting for school holidays.
k. They go on holiday.
l. They then go to stay at the boyfriend’s house.
m. The father beats them up.
n. They sleep rough for a few nights.
o. Some sort of care proceedings happen.
p. The boyfriend goes into care.
q. The boyfriend has to “stay” in care until he turns sixteen.
Paisley does not say how long all these events took, but there are certainly enough of them to cast doubt on his assertion that his boyfriend was “just about to turn sixteen” when they met. Whatever age the boyfriend really was, just about to turn sixteen or not, I take the view that there is no situation in which children should be having sex - not with each other, not with their peers, not with adults.
Many people take a more tolerant view than I do of “Romeo and Juliet” relationships between peers who are over/under the age of consent. Clearly, the idea that police go about seeking prosecutions for kids in their final year of secondary school who are having sexual relationships with each other is not a sane one. But neither should adults be implying that it is a good idea for children to be having sexual relationships with anybody. Public figures should be particularly careful on this point.
If you want to know what I think about “Romeo and Juliet” relationships, it is this: children are not capable of understanding the seriousness or implications of what they are doing; they are open to being manipulated and abused; there is nothing to be gained by having sex now that cannot be gained by having sex after they turn sixteen, and there is much to be lost by normalising the idea that children can consent to sex. I do not think this is an unreasonable view.
Paisley has admitted, on a public forum, that when he was seventeen, he committed sexual offences against a fifteen-year-old child on a number of occasions, over a period of time, and that his mother was complicit in his crimes. To be clear, this does not imply that he “is a paedophile.” In fact, as I have stated elsewhere, I don’t think that “a paedophile” is a thing you can be. It isn’t an orientation. There are crimes against children and those who commit them.
The acts Paisley did are, under the very best interpretation, indicative of somebody who lacks boundaries and common sense. The admission to it on a public forum is perhaps even more startling than the acts themselves. He could simply have NOT tweeted the thread. There was no pressure on him to do so. But it is the “moral of story” that he draws out which is perhaps the most startling of all.
Paisley argues from his experience to the lowering of the age of consent, and the decriminalisation of “adolescent sexuality.” It is difficult to see how he could mean anything other than “I should not be criminalised for the sexual offences against a fifteen-year-old child, because at seventeen, I was his “peer.” This is to say the least, an unusual set of admissions and arguments for a public figure to make, on a public forum, in respect of activities which constitutes serious, criminal, sexual offences, committed against a child.
Some of the blame, of course, lies with LGBT Youth Scotland. They should not have held events which included 15 and 17 year olds at the same club. Doing so sends out mixed messages to those young people about who their peers actually are, and what is appropriate - as well as giving them opportunities to form relationships of the kind Paisley describes. It is also not a good idea for adults, such as Paisley’s mother, to turn a blind eye to their children’s activities. He was failed twice. But this is not the line he is taking; he is, in his 40s, still justifying and attempting to normalise the actions he took when he was seventeen.
That a man who tweeted this thread in this fashion has the audacity to report me to the police and to take a High Court libel action against me for calling him a paedophile enabler is… well, let’s just say it boggles my brain.
Victimised by Unequal Laws
Paisley does not stop at admitting to committing a sex crime against a minor. He continues by attempting to provide a justification for his crime, to normalise it, and to shame those who disagree with his view. He says “I share this so people have a chance to learn and understand what it’s like being LGBT+ and having your adolescent relationships criminalised and discriminated against by unequal laws, by a society that rejects who we are.”
LGBT+ adolescent relationships are not criminalised “in a modern Scotland.” This is not the issue. There is no homophobia in the criminalisation of sex crimes against minors in the UK today. It is true that in the 90’s, the age of consent for sex acts between males was eighteen compared with sixteen for sex between males and females. However, as the law currently stands, in 2022, if a young person of seventeen has sex with a boy of fifteen, the seventeen-year-old is subject to criminal penalties for his actions and the boy is not. Likewise a seventeen-year-old having sex with a fifteen-year-old girl.
It is not, as Paisley implies, unequal laws that made his actions criminal, even at the time. They would still be illegal under equal laws. Neither is it homophobia. That has nothing to do with it. It is a smokescreen. What made his acts illegal then (and would make them illegal under today’s legislation) is the fact that his boyfriend was fifteen. As Paisley says in his thread, his boyfriend was a “child sleeping rough,” and Paisley was seventeen. Paisley is using “homophobia” and “discrimination against LGBT people” as a smokescreen for his offences against a child.
“No Young Person Should Be Criminalised For Consensual Experiences With Their Peers”
Paisley (perhaps unsurprisingly given how he opened the thread) also attempts to justify his actions by saying that “no young person should be criminalised for consensual experiences with their peers.” The obvious and immediate interpretation of this tweet is that “no young person” refers to Paisley, and “peers” refers to his boyfriend. Of course, he thinks that he shouldn’t be criminalised for what felt, to him, like a consensual relationship.
But further analysis, every word in Paisley’s phrase is open to interpretation. “Young” can mean anything up to your 40s, nowadays, and who knows how young “young” goes? “Consensual” is a good word, but cannot apply to sex with fifteen-year-old children who are incapable in law of consenting to sex. “Peers” is a word that could include people in the same school, people of similar ages, but who knows how wide the bracket that includes one’s “peers” might be? “Experiences” is a euphemism for penetration of the vagina, mouth or anus by a penis. Children cannot consent to this; Paisley blurs boundaries and suggests that they can, that his boyfriend did.
Paisley’s thread is specifically about the age of consent. This context is crucial. His personal account can only be logically read as an argument in favour of revising consent ages downwards from sixteen. Paisley cannot hope to sustain an argument that this is not directly enabling to those who seek to molest children.
Paisley does not even suggest a lower limit for the age of consent, (although he does say “no young person” should be criminalised for sexual relationships with their peers, which strongly suggests no lower age limit whatsoever on children having sex). Paisley’s view is that his sexual activity with a fifteen-year-old when he was seventeen is just “adolescent sexuality,” that he should not be “criminalised” for it, that he harmed nobody and that his actions should be normalised.
Further, he states that anybody who disagrees with decriminalising people over the age of consent committing sex crimes against those under the age of consent is “freaking out,” or “triggered” about nothing, is driven by homophobia and hatred, and political candidates who disagree with him should be judged on that basis at the ballot box.
But why is sixteen the age of consent?
A reader who is aware of safeguarding even at a basic level should not be convinced by Paisley’s story, even less so by his arguments. Instead, the thread should be read as an illustration of several very good reasons that the law in the UK takes the view that children under the age of sixteen cannot consent to sex. At fifteen, the boyfriend is dependent on his parents, and when his parents discovered what happened, he ended up being beaten up, estranged from his family, sleeping rough and going into care.
Under the equal age of consent laws now in play, if the boyfriend had been sixteen, he may still have been beaten and estranged from his family, but Paisley would not have needed to fear arrest if they were caught, so the pair would not have ended up sleeping rough, and the boyfriend could have been emancipated from the parents and may not have ended up going into care.
Sixteen is the age of consent for a very good reason. Whether Paisley’s story is true or not (and I have my suspicions regarding embellishments, missing information, missing time and so on), the thread muddies the waters around the age of consent, implies children can consent to sex, and is directly paedophile enabling.
Perhaps the most telling thing of all about this thread, however, is the fact that Paisley is emboldened enough to make such admissions on a public forum and then argue from those admissions that children can consent to sex and that sex with children should be decriminalised. He may or may not be aware that this is the implication of his words. I am inclined to think that he is not aware – or he would not have made this startling set of admissions and arguments. But whatever his intention, and whether his little story is true or not, and whatever your view of “Romeo and Juliet” relationships, the thread is, in and of itself, clearly paedophile enabling.
[1] Paisley later in the thread calls them “triggered” and “incensed.”