“child, 13” - a 13yo is a teenager, not a child.
That article was a pain in the ass to read, horribly structured.
What she did: “The court heard the girl was taken to the protest outside the Potters International Hotel, which houses asylum seekers, by a parent of a friend. Police body-worn video showed the teenager briefly bang and kick at a door of the hotel while voices could be heard telling her to stop.”
Her sentence, a “12-month referral order”: “A referral order means you are required to attend a youth offender panel. The panel, you, your parents/carers and the victim (where appropriate) agree a contract aimed at repairing the harm that has been caused and addressing the causes of the offending behaviours.” (https://unlock.org.uk/advice/referral-order-18/)
The conviction seems to be on permanent record, though, which does seem a bit much for this considering her age.
Teenagers are children, my dude.
Teenagers are minors, but not children, my guy.
I have a 14-year-old.
They’re children.
And if my daughter did something like this last year, I would absolutely want her to face legal repercussions. I love her, but that doesn’t mean I would find this to be in any way acceptable behavior, and at a level beyond what I as a parent could do.
I would, however, do my best to make sure she was put in a juvenile facility and given good mental healthcare.
At 13 they basically are still children
At 13, they are both basically and literally teenagers, which comes with the legal consequence of being liable for criminal actions.
I’ve never heard of that legal distinction, but I want you to go talk to any parent of a 13 year old and ask how they refer to a 13 year old and the vast majority will call those people a child and also call them a teenager. A ton of teachers will do the same thing.
At age 19 you are still a teenager but in the eyes of the law many times you are considered an adult.
So it is fair to call a 13 year old a child because basically they still are.