You seem to be suggesting that arguing for the reduction of the age of consent and child rape are equivalent.
There's a perfectly good argument that children aged 14 are unlikely to be mature enough to give real consent and are open to manipulation by older people who engineer a situation of apparent consent, and that the 1976 NCCL line would have given rise to a lot of exploitation, if implemented. I would agree with that view.
But putting forward a line of argument that most of us would disagree with, and raping children, are two entirely different things, no?
I'm not conflating the two arguements at all. Child Rape and a discussion about the age of consent are not the same.
The subject of the disagreement in this situation is irrelevent however. The Sun have found a stick to beat Labour with as is their want. The fact they are able to link it (how ever tenously) to something as morally abhorrant as paedophillia for them is a bonus. It is strange that some regular posters in this thread appear to regard this approach to journalism with a sort of horror that was not evident when another equally insubstantiated story about politicians of a different colour and paedophilla was reported. I would go so far to say as that those posters appeared to revel in the fact that a Tory ex-minister was linked to such behaviour. Granted one accusation is far more serious than the other however, the real thrust of my arguement was that when a party with whom certain posters have more of an affiliation are involved in such a distasteful story they, in the words of Cpl Jones "Don't like it up 'em" and then agree with such tactics when it suits their agenda.
Edited to remove the most heinous of homophone crimes.