A POLICE chief sparked outrage yesterday by claiming men who bed girls as young as 13 were not all paedophiles.
Chief Constable Terry Grange laimed sleeping with kids a few years under 16 "was a grey area" - even if the man was twice their age.
Mr Grange, who speaks for UK police bosses on child protection, said: "I don't personally adhere to the 15-year-old being with a 20-year old being paedophilia - or even if the boyfriend is 30.
"It is much more of an issue for me if the child is under 13."
Sex with a child below that age is automatically deemed rape.
The officer, head of Dyfed-Powys Police, said the appropriate action depended on the case - even when child pornography was involved.
He added: "You look at the circumstances. It may be nothing, it may be formal warnings, it may be prosecution."
But his remarks drew furious condemnation from kids' charities.
Kidscape, which fights child sex abuse, called him "irresponsible".
It said: "A paedophile is a person sexually attracted to children.
In this country we class this as children under 16."
NCH, formerly National Children's Homes, claimed sex fiends could use his comments to justify their actions.
A spokesman said: "Any proposal by a serving child protection officer to define child pornography as that which only involves children 12 and under is unhelpful and irresponsible.
"Denial by sexual offenders is often the result of their twisted, distorted and biased thinking."
And the NSPCC added: "It is right that it is an offence to have sex with a child under 16."
Mr Grange later claimed he had meant sex between two teenagers.
He said: "If you prosecute every time a boy has sex with a girl under 16 and above 12, we'd be in schools and youth clubs regularly.
"But If the fellow is in his 20s, 30s or 40s, I believe you should prosecute them ruthlessly."
IS HE RIGHT?