I refer to the articles ‘Youth, 17, admits to revenge porn’ (August 28) and ‘Local councillors aged 16’ by Desmond Zammit Marmarà, in the same issue. What a conundrum they manage to cook up.

On the one hand, we have a 17-year-old “who had been in a relationship for some months”, with the article making it easy to deduce the kind of relationship. We also read that he “threatened to share naked photos of the girl online. The photos were sent to him while the two were still in a relationship”.

So, while the boy (or man?) pleaded guilty of possession of pornographic material, the girl (or woman?) being the provider, went scot-free. At least, the article gave that impression, that it is acceptable for a female to send pornographic material but a male would go to court accused with possession.

According to Zammit Marmarà’s article, a youth of 16 is fit to sit on the local council. The educated part of the electorate knows full well that 16 is too young an age for one to manage the politics involved. Indeed, local councils are politically charged to the brim. So far, the political parties have managed to devour all the local council seats up for grabs. People of goodwill with the desire to do something good for locality stand no chance of being elected unless they contest on behalf of a political party.

Thus, according to our courts being 17 is too young for one to be treated as an adult with regard to illicit relationships and pornography but responsible and wise enough, to be a councillor at 16, according to Zammit Marmarà.

When is one old enough to carry responsibility? When is one ‘of age’? Is Zammit Marmarà correct and the courts wrong or vice-versa?