QUESTION: The criminal conviction that the woman was “crying and distressed” has now been exposed to be a lie, and there was no victim allegation in this case. The interest in bondage is a trend among this generation, with some people liking such practices. However, the big age-gap between Joseph and his partner has raised moral concerns within the community.
ANSWER: Age gap relationships, not defined as an offence by law, highlight a fundamental principle: individuals within the legal age of consent are entitled to engage in romantic relationships and marriage. The legal age of consent in the UK began at age 16. This perspective aligns with two significant legal theories: Natural law and Legal positivism.
Natural law suggests that laws are based on inherent moral principles shared by humans. In the context of age gap relationships, if both parties are within the legal age of consent and consenting, Natural law argue that their mutual consent reflects a natural, moral right to pursue happiness and companionship, regardless of age differences.
Legal positivism, on the other hand, emphasises that laws are rules established by the State, and citizens are obliged to follow these laws, irrespective of personal morals or cultural practices. Since our legal system do not specify age gap relationships as an offence, provided both Joseph and his partner are of legal consenting age, their family life relationship with parental consent to marry are legally permissible in British law. Legal positivism requires individuals to adhere to the explicit statutes of their country, which, in this case, do not prohibit relationships based on age differences.
Thus, from both a Natural law perspective, which prioritises inherent moral rights, and a Legal positivism viewpoint, which mandates adherence to the explicit laws of the State, age gap relationships, when involving consenting people within the legal age of consent, are both morally acceptable and legally valid. Individuals, irrespective of their personal or cultural morals, are obliged to respect the national laws of their country, which, in British law, allow for such big age gap relationship between Joseph and his partner legally permissible.
It is by law offensive to the UK legal principle for anyone to criticise the age-gap relationship between Joseph and his partner. Joseph and his partner can sue anyone to court who criticise their age-gap relationship and seek appropriate compensation for injury to feelings, because age-gap relationship is not prescribed as an offence in British law. As a community, we should be conversant with the law so we are not led by prejudice people that would drag the name of a whole community into disrepute contrary to the law we strive to uphold.
Joseph originate from an African cultural practices where men are morally expected to be older than their partner, if not significantly older. The age-gap difference between King Charles and princess Diana is practically within the same category as the age-gap relationship between Joseph and his partner. Are we safe to say that famous people are allowed to engage in big age-gap relationships and marriages, and ordinary people are not? Joseph and his partner have been a victim of bad policing and they require our support to overturn the conviction. As a community, we should not be distracted by our individual personal morals against age gap relationships, because that is immaterial to the essence of this case. We should be wholly concern about the nature of police and CPS ‘Opinion Evidence’ to prosecute and convict anyone based on subjective opinion without any victim allegation and falsification of evidence at court trial.
As a community, we should be particularly grateful that Joseph had legal experience and was a legal executive and had not lose a case before his prosecution and conviction, which, as we found out was not fully disclosed to Police Donna Hector not until after she falsified evidence against him and sent him to prison. If Joseph was not legally experienced, he would ofcouse lack the legal knowledge to defend himself against his prosecutors. It is particularly important that this conviction does not stand, because it would then be easy for the police to rely on the subjective ‘Opinion Evidence’ of this case as a case-precedent to began to prosecute other people they simply don’t like in society and sent to prison, where the police would no longer require factual evidence to convict or require the court to verdict a criminal case on the well-revered British legal principle of ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’, but simply on the opinion evidence of ‘police say so’ and court jury verdict brought by ‘Balance of probability’. This would be dangerous and a bad legacy to leave to our younger generation. It wouldn’t be long before it all comes home to roost and becomes the convention; where our children and granchildren are ending up in prisons on subjective opinion of police tyranny and a law unto themselves.
Back to 👇