Mine would be that the whole series was just an elaborate day dream of Ron where he hooks up with his best friend in the end. In reality they're just buddies.
@The Flame War, I still say she's going to reveal that the books/movies never existed, and we've just Mandela Effected the whole thing
@The Flame War, equal parts terrifying and plausible. Love it.
Scabbers has seen Ron masturbate, and now Chris Hanson is looking for Peter Pettigrew...
@A Blunt Object, And Viktor Krum, for grooming Hermione Granger when she was 14.
@Nellybert , to be fair, VK was still 17 at the time.
@Sir LancesALot, Yeah, but under UK law it’s still an offence to crack on to someone under 16.
@Nellybert , Okay, you're going to need to explain what "crack on to" means because I don't remember Krum ever offering drugs to Hermione.
@Sir LancesALot, Hit on/come on to/flirt with/try and pull/attempt to groom.
@Nellybert , I read the actual law. It doesn't apply to people who are 17, only if they are 18 or older and doesn't reasonably believe they are 16 or younger. Since Krum was 17 at the time, it doesn't apply. Also, it only applies if the person sexually touches the person, which I don't remember Krum ever doing that.
@Sir LancesALot, Not sure you got that right - age of consent here is 16, so his age wouldn’t matter as she is too young to consent (reasonable belief that they are over 16 can be a defence, but isn’t always - and he knew her age anyway).
Also, I said ‘grooming’ which is basically trying to convince someone under 16 to engage in sexual activity.
And you’re forgetting the most crucial point - this was never meant as a serious discussion, it’s fiction.
@Nellybert , No, actually, 13 is the age where there is no consent given no matter what. 16 is the age of consent when concerned with adults. And the law itself says "18 or older."
I know it's fiction, and this isn't a serious discussion, but getting information correct is important regardless. Because knowledge is power, and power is half the battle.
Krum is a bit of a creep regardless.
@Sir LancesALot, Sorry dude, you’re wrong - below 13 it can never be given (so the ‘reasonable belief’ defence wouldn’t count), but the age of consent for sexual activity in the UK is 16. And in the context of sexual activity, you stop being a child on your 17th birthday. So if a 17 year old diddles a 14 year old, they’re breaking the law.
18 is only relevant if one part is under 18 and the other is in a position of trust (so a teacher bonking a 17 year old student is covered).
@Nellybert , @Nellybert , The law reads
"A person 18 or over (A) commits an offense if—
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual, and
(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13."
Someone who is 17 doesn't fall under this offense. The law is there for two reasons; to prevent child prostitution, and protect minors until their brain is developed enough to give reasonable consent. It is not there to say someone 16 and over is an adult.
@Sir LancesALot, Where are you taking that from?
@Nellybert , http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences
@Sir LancesALot, Interesting - https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-3-consent is almost identical, but without the 18:
A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot consent in law, (Archbold 2004, 20-152).
Sexual Offences Act 2003
The Act sets out the offences requiring the prosecution to prove absence of consent at sections 1-4. They are:
assault by penetration;
sexual assault; and
causing a person to engage in sexual activity.
In relation to these offences a person (A) is guilty of an offence if she/he:
(B) does not consent to the act, and
(A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents
@Nellybert , That is a bit broad in it's wording, as yours only gives a single age and would also put anyone of an age, including those below the age of 16 in an offensive position when engaging with someone else below the age of 16.
@Sir LancesALot, Dude, age of consent is 16 - so sex with anyone under 16 is automatically statutory rape. That’s not my wording, that’s from the Crown Prosecution Service - the people who decide if a case goes to court, and prosecute the ones which do.
And yes, that does mean someone under 16 can be charged with rape if both parties are under the age of consent. It happens: https://www.lep.co.uk/news/crime/boy-14-in-court-charged-with-raping-13-year-old-girl-on-new-year-s-day-1-9523791
Snape keeps losing the defense against the dark arts job because his old anti-muggle tweets resurface
Voldemort is Jewish but was never circumcised
@InsaneWorm, Maybe he was really badly circumcised - I mean, did they ever really explain what happened to his nose?
You, the Reader, have been gay all along
Polyjuice potion was invented to help gender fluid witches & wizards explore their gender identities fully.
“Fetus deletus” isn’t that Zenon’s catchphrase? 🤔
Harry Potter was actually black the whole time he’s just very lightskinned
Porn mags with moving pictures exist in the wizarding world
In other words, you would do exactly the same thing she's already doing