
Teenagers having sex is news to no one. Thank goodness the government has seen sense on this
Teenage love is in the headlines, because of the news that there will be a 'Romeo and Juliet' exemption to the new crime and policing bill obliging professionals in England, including teachers and healthcare workers, to report suspicions of child sexual abuse. The exemption for teenagers in consensual sexual relationships received cross-party support, recognising that 'not all sexual activity involving under-18s is a cause for alarm or state intervention'.
This is all common sense, and similar approaches are already in place in countries such as Australia and France. That teenagers engage in sexual activity should be news to no one – obliging teachers to report every instance as a potential child sexual offence will give them an even higher workload than they face already. Instead, they can use their professional judgment. Safeguards remain in place: if there is any indication of harm or imbalance, the duty to report remains.
It confirms what many of us have long known: that often the most present threat to teenage girls are those older guys who just can't seem to get a girlfriend their own age. You know the kind. The groomers. Guys who are 19, 20, older, who hang around the school gates in their Saxos and Corsas. In my home town, one actually went on the run with – or arguably abducted – a just turned 13-year-old girl. Others would invite underage girls to their shitty flats and ply them with alcohol. Alongside these men you had the even older ones in positions of power – at my own school, the biggest threat to teen girls was our actual headteacher (Neil Foden was eventually convicted of multiple offences).
It would be utterly absurd to put such criminal abuse and exploitation on a par with teenage fumbling. The use of Romeo and Juliet to describe the clause may at first seem rather grandiose, but isn't that just how love, or at least lust, feels at that age? Intense, powerful, tragic even. That feeling of 'If I can't kiss him right this very second against the science block stairs, then I might as well drink poison'. I suspect its resonance is the reason it's on the syllabus for pupils just about coming up to Juliet's age (13). It also provides a framework for discussing these issues in class ('I know you feel like the main character in your own Shakespearean tragedy right now, but maybe put down the deadly nightshade and listen to some Lana Del Rey instead?')
I remember how Amy, who sat next to me in English, could recite most of the play by heart. 'O brawling love! O loving hate!' – I can still hear her voice now. That Romeo is saying these words about Rosaline, before he abruptly switches his affection to Juliet, was lost on us. It was in vain that our English teacher tried to get us to think about how Shakespeare might have been commenting on the fickleness of young love. There's no telling you when you're in the middle of it, is there? Yet there's an argument that we should take teenagers' romantic feelings more seriously, because they can go on to shape us.
Today's teens are lucky, in many ways. They are not experiencing their first love, or lust, against a backdrop of alarming teenage pregnancy rates, as we were. They receive better sex education, at an earlier age, have access to more varied methods of contraception, and are generally more clued up about the biology of reproduction. We certainly weren't making TikToks about the luteal phase – we didn't even know what it meant, let alone how it might affect your dating behaviour.
One thing hasn't changed, though, and that's how vulnerable teenagers are, and how easily their hearts can be broken. We thought we were so grown up when we were fooling around at 15, going on dates to Pizza Hut, dissecting our relationships on MSN and rolling ridiculous 10-skin joints so we could hotbox caravans. We were just kids, like the teens I see walking to school or on the bus now, so impossibly young and naive, but fizzing with hormones that made you want to jump each other.
While jumping each other on a Tuesday morning outside set two maths isn't often going to be a reportable offence, anyone who works with young people knows that their vulnerable hearts need some sort of safeguarding, too. Perhaps, alongside all the work that needs to be done in terms of consent and online misogyny and how to recognise abusive relationships, we all need formal lessons in heartbreak – after all, these years can shape our adult relationships to come and who we are. I wonder about the role they play in later infidelities, too. Most of us are happy to leave those Impulse-scented years behind us, but we all know someone who will always chase that Juicy Fruit high.
Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett is a Guardian columnist and author

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Mark Carney seems terrified of being found out
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney seems to have made it his mission to avoid political scrutiny at all costs. So much so that he appears to have cancelled one of the very few positive things his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, ever did in office. Trudeau's Liberal government released proposals in March 2017 designed to 'modernise' the rules of Canada's House of Commons. One recommendation announced by then-Government House Leader, Bardish Chagger, was to 'follow the British tradition of designating one day a week for the prime minister to answer questions in the House'. In other words, a Canadian version of the UK's Prime Minister's Questions. This new parliamentary tradition unexpectedly began on Wednesday, April 5 2017. There had been no prior announcement, no advance warning, and no formal change of parliamentary rules – and, until opposition MPs realised that the PM was answering every question, no idea what was going on. 'Because Trudeau is fond of the element of surprise, nobody knew this little display of derring-do was coming,' as columnist Paul Wells nicely put it in Maclean's the following day. And for almost eight years, Trudeau followed through with the practice, answering questions from any representative in the Commons on Wednesdays. For all his faults as Canada's leader, it was a welcome gesture meant to improve accountability. He didn't answer the questions well most of the time, but he never stopped doing them. Carney appears to have different ideas. It was first reported in The Canadian Press on May 26 that he would not take up Trudeau's Wednesday tradition. No proper explanation has ever been given. The whole situation seems clouded in confusion. Carney has turned up a few times in the Commons. But has an important democratic innovation died with barely a whimper? It would hardly be surprising if it had. Carney is politically inexperienced. He isn't comfortable as a public speaker. He doesn't like to be challenged publicly, and it shows. There were some mildly tense exchanges during his first address outside Ottawa's Rideau Hall. An intense back-and-forth between Carney, the Globe and Mail's Stephanie Levitz and CBC News Network's Rosemary Barton on March 17 raised plenty of eyebrows. They had asked legitimate questions about the lack of public details surrounding Carney's blind trust and possible conflicts of interest due to his years in the private sector. When Barton said she found it 'very difficult to believe' there couldn't be any conflicts of interests, Carney bizarrely told her to 'look into herself' and 'you start from a prior of conflict and…ill will'. Since that time, Carney and his team have seemed keen to avoid difficult questions or situations. Perhaps they believe that the less he appears in public, the less likely he is to reveal the 'volcanic temper' that Larry Elliott, the former Guardian economics editor, identified from Carney's time at the Bank of England. They're wrong. A strong leader would willingly take on the challenge of answering every question in the House on Wednesday, no matter the result. Carney appears to be running scared of public scrutiny in order to protect his political backside. That's not leadership in any sense of the word.


Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
How the ‘jolly' Commons Speaker became one of Westminster's sharpest operators
Sir Lindsay Hoyle is the face of Parliament. For more than five years, he has run the House of Commons from the gothic splendour of the 13ft Speaker's chair. His public image is one of a bluff, convivial Lancastrian. Ministers and journalists are regularly hosted in his grace and favour house; hotpot tartlet is a party favourite. But his ever-present smile conceals a finely tuned political mind that makes him one of Westminster's sharpest operators. Recent weeks have demonstrated why that is so important. First there were reports of an exchange with Rachel Reeves that saw the Chancellor weep on camera. Then there was the super injunction over the Afghan data leak. Harriet Harman, Sir Lindsay's old rival for the Speakership, suggested he had failed in his duties by not pressuring ministers to tell MPs. 'In the Speaker's chair, all eyes are upon you,' says one Labour veteran. Having watched his two predecessors leave office in disgrace, Sir Lindsay is determined for the same thing not to happen to him. In the Reeves affair, he was trying to smooth things over after a previous altercation about protocol. In Harman's case, his office hit back firmly, pointing out that Sir Lindsay was bound by a super injunction. Publicly robust; privately conciliatory. It is that awareness of the unwritten rules of political discourse which explains Sir Lindsay's prominence in Parliament. His Speakership is the culmination of a lifetime's work. Sir Lindsay was quite literally born into the Labour party. His father, Doug, spent 21 years as an MP; Lindsay's first Labour conference was as a baby in 1957. Growing up, he learnt the political craft from his father. While Hoyle Sr made his name in Westminster, his son cut his teeth in Labour's north-west machine. 'The by-ways of Lancashire,' said one ex-MP in 2019, 'are littered with the bodies of those who've underestimated Lindsay.' Seventeen years on, Chorley borough council refined Sir Lindsay's talents. In 1997, his dad retired, and Hoyle Jr, aged 39, entered the Commons. The 2010 election, in which so many Labour hopes were dashed, proved to be Sir Lindsay's making. Encouraged by friends, he stood for the vacant Deputy Speakership and won. In the words of one colleague, 'The campaign for Speaker began that day.' For nine years, he served as the balm to John Bercow's poison, impressing MPs with his good humour and calm demeanour. The Speaker's decision to quit in September 2019 was a godsend for Sir Lindsay. For two decades, he had cultivated his colleagues; it was his friends, rather than the imminent Tory intake who would choose the new Speaker. 'It was decided by those leaving, rather than those joining,' reflects one former MP. Sir Lindsay was regarded as the runaway favourite and courted the electorate accordingly. To Tories, he sympathised about Bercow's politicking; for Labour it was a chance to have one of their own. Sir Lindsay ran as the candidate of experience, promising to protect MPs' security and restore Bercow's office to its former greatness. During Covid, he won plaudits across the House for his determination to keep the Commons running. His penchant for Urgent Questions made him popular among backbenchers, much to ministers' irritation. 'He runs a permanent campaign,' says one frontbencher. 'We get his regular newsletter and see his stuff online.' Sir Lindsay has a veritable menagerie of pets named after various politicians. His cat, Attlee, boasts its own Instagram account and line of goods in the House of Commons gift shop. He has known tragedy in his family life, too: Sir Lindsay has spoken movingly about the death of his daughter Natalie, aged just 28, in 2017. Sir Lindsay's worst moment as Speaker came in February 2024. As Labour tore itself apart on Gaza, Sir Lindsay was accused of favouritism by ignoring official advice. During an SNP motion calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, opponents charged that Sir Lindsay had bent parliamentary rules to let an alternative Labour amendment be debated instead. His response to the ensuing outrage showed his skills as a survivor. He apologised, quickly, on the floor of the Commons, offering to meet with parties 'to discuss the way forward'. That ability to admit mistakes and grasp 'the mood of the House' is partly why he has been able to survive the fractious era of post-Brexit politics. 'Lindsay likes to be liked,' says a friend. 'He understands people – how they work, what they think and where they want to be.' His attentiveness to MPs' needs has helped him win unlikely friends too. Within Reform there is praise for how the Speaker has welcomed their new MPs and given them suitable offices in Parliament. Nigel Farage has publicly declared his respect for Sir Lindsay. Where Bercow revelled in conflict, his successor largely eschews it. 'He's always down our end of the tea room,' remarks one Tory. For such an astute operator, the Speaker does have a blind spot. His taste for the trappings of office has provoked much comment in the press. A string of foreign trips in business or first class ran up a sum of £275,000 in two years; Bercow took 10 years to rack up the same bill for 'non-regular' foreign travel. His accommodation is invariably high-end: the St Regis in Doha, the Westin Grand in the Cayman Islands, and the Ritz-Carlton in Los Angeles. One long-standing colleague suggests that Sir Lindsay's choices are indicative of an Old Labour mindset, namely that 'nothing's too good for the workers'. There are gifts too, with Sir Lindsay keeping almost 300 presents since 2021 including dozens of bottles of alcohol, hampers, ties, cufflinks and chocolates. No rules have ever been broken, but there are echoes of the 'freebiegate' row that plagued this Government in its first months in office. Sir Lindsay's reputation as being 'pro-MP', means, in the words of one, 'none of us want to make much out of all that'. The Speaker is unapologetic, insisting that he is merely maintaining the prestige of the office. Aides argue that his post confers an ambassadorial role, requiring him to build links between his office and its equivalents around the world. 'Other Speakers have their own aircraft and travel around the world all the time without criticism,' declared Sir Lindsay earlier this year. He sees himself as an unabashed champion of parliament. Critics, though, question his mission of 'Speaker-led diplomacy'. They ask whether diplomacy ought not to remain the sole preserve of the elected government. A mis-sent email in January 2024 prompted a public row over whether Sir Lindsay had intended to fly the Palestinian flag from the grandly-named 'Speaker's Flagpoles'. Sir Lindsay denied this was ever his intention. Aiding the Speaker is an expanding team: the head count in the Speaker's office has doubled since he took over. Yet despite his wobbles, Sir Lindsay seems near-certain to serve out the remainder of his Speakership in this parliament. Already there have been murmurings, sotto voce, about likely contenders. The diary columnists have started tipping Meg Hillier, the Treasury Select Committee chair. Nus Ghani, the current Deputy Speaker, is another seen as 'on manoeuvres'. At 68, Sir Lindsay is yet to name an exit date. But would-be pretenders for his chair could do worse than study his rise to the Speakership and make their plans accordingly. After all, that is what Sir Lindsay would do.


Daily Mirror
7 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Parliament told veterans "are dying by the week and month" as ministers withhold evidence of Nuked Blood Scandal
Veterans are dying while waiting for ministers to announce what evidence they have found about how they were used in nuclear weapons experiments, Parliament has heard MPs have heard an impassioned plea for ministers to reveal evidence they have uncovered of human radiation experiments on troops. Parliament was told veterans are "dying by the week and month" without the justice they have sought for decades, while an ongoing government review has uncovered proof that courts were repeatedly misled about what had befallen them. Tory grandee Sir John Hayes told the House of Commons that the survivors and their families deserved to be told the truth. He said: "Earlier this year, the government announced that there will be a review into the blood and urine tests take at the time of those tests... because of the risk of radiation poisoning. "The government has said that the review will be published, but we have no clarity as to when. There are tens of thousands of these records which are being examined as we speak... these men are now elderly; they are dying, of course, because of their age, by the week and month." Ministry of Defence lawyers have repeatedly told war pension hearings, the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court that there was no individual biological monitoring of the 40,000 UK and Commonwealth troops who took part in more than 600 radioactive weapons experiments during the Cold War. But the Mirror has uncovered thousands of memos, locked on a secret database at the Atomic Weapons Establishment on the grounds of national security, detailing orders for, and discussion of, blood counts, urinalysis, and chest x-rays, without any clinical reason beyond monitoring men's exposure to radiation. The results are now missing from their individual medical records, denying them war pensions, compensation, and accurate diagnosis of health problems. As a result of our investigation ministers launched a review which has already examined 43,000 files, and an estimated 1.1m pages of information. Earlier this week we reported that some of the files seen by the review team included requests for blood tests "from the medico-legal aspect" and orders from Bomber Command instructing RAF members of the weapons task force to be subjected to them. Yet when ministers are asked for an update on what has been found they decline. Veterans Minister Al Carns told Parliament recently: "I will update the house when I am in a position to share the findings of the exercise that is looking at concerns raised with me about some nuclear test veterans' medical records." Survivors of the testing claim a catalogue of cancers, blood diseases and rare medical conditions. Their wives show three times the normal rate of miscarriages, and their children 10 times the usual amount of birth defects. Successive governments have always denied troops were part of the experiment. Government lawyers told judges in sworn statements that 'the planning policy for the tests indicates that the intention was to prevent intake, rather than to allow it and monitor the results" and 'no personal records' of medical monitoring were made. Ministers also told Parliament the MoD "holds no information about blood testing", only for the evidence to later be uncovered by campaigners.