A Judge Labels a 13 year old girl as a "sexual predator" after SHE was sexually assaulted

(265 Posts)
LeStewpot Tue 06-Aug-13 12:18:36

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AnyOldFucker Sun 11-Aug-13 18:59:22

Of course

He should be in prison now, in fear for his tender arsehole

There is no justice in this world sometimes, rough or otherwise

edam Sun 11-Aug-13 18:57:56

Well, his attitude does make you wonder if he was lucky that the verdict went his way...

duchesse Sun 11-Aug-13 17:52:41

There is no excuse for shagging someone under-age unless you are the same age or just slightly older <-- This

Believing or stating anything different is to my mind just paedophilia apologism.

Darkesteyes Sun 11-Aug-13 17:09:46

YY AF I was listening to 5 Live last night after i saw ppl discussing it in my TL

Someone came up with a suggestion that there should be an option to have a verdict of not proven rather than not guilty in some of these cases.

AnyFucker Sun 11-Aug-13 17:03:03

Eddie Shah should be in prison.

edam Sun 11-Aug-13 16:55:38

No grown man would let a 13 yo drive their car. Even if they did look a bit older. The man would check. He wouldn't let a 16 yo drive his car, either.

There is no excuse for shagging someone under-age unless you are the same age or just slightly older.

TheDoctrineOfAllan Sun 11-Aug-13 14:19:49

I saw that, Bunny, horrible opinions from Eddie Shah.

TheSilverySoothsayer Sun 11-Aug-13 12:15:12

Even if she shows the behaviour of a sexual predator, Dowager, that just shows that she is a damaged child.

Of course, the perpetrator may be a damaged person as well. In that case, there may be a case for mitigation. If so, evidence for mitigation should be evidence about the perpetrator, not the victim.

Bunnylion Sun 11-Aug-13 11:38:08

I can't believe this is actually a discussion in 2013 today's news

AnyaKnowIt Sat 10-Aug-13 21:49:54

SinisterSal, if that barman tried to use the excuse that he thought she was oder he would be told that ignorance isn't a defence. shame the same doesn't apply to sex offences

Caster8 Sat 10-Aug-13 20:54:49

Sort of realised from this thread that there are different sorts of rapists. The husband or partner sort. The oppurtunist sort. The, try it on when drunk or at a party type. And a type that I hadnt really much thought about before, the pre meditated grooming type. All rapists of course.

SinisterSal Sat 10-Aug-13 20:40:03

Look at this way Dowager -

If he was a barman and we served her vodka he'd lose his license, no matter how much she claimed she loved vodka, could hold her drink, had been drunk loads of times before etc. He, as the adult with responsibility would be deemed to be at fault and would be punished. She, as the child acting in an age inappropriate manner and liable to find herself damaged, would be helped.

Does that make it any bit clearer?

LurcioLovesFrankie Sat 10-Aug-13 20:35:44

Well, precisely, BIWI - I presume from everything she's said so far that her answer is yes. Mine is no. And I totally agree with you - (a) if a 13 year old acts in a sexualised manner, it's because she's acting out in reaction to having already been abused and (b) even if she does act out, it's no excuse for a 41 year old to behave in this way.

Because you and I are coming from the position that the answer to my question is unequivocally 'no', the precise details of the case are not necessary to condemn the judge and the crown prosecutor's remarks.

BIWI Sat 10-Aug-13 20:14:49

Lurcio - sadly, I think she does. But that's actually not the point. Even if a girl of 13 does behave in this way, that's no reason for a 41 year old man to abuse her.

Something which dowager seems unable to comprehend, despite having a 13 year old daughter herself.

More worryingly, if a girl of 13 is behaving in a sexually predatory way, perhaps this should be a cause for concern? Perhaps we should, as a civilised society, be asking ourselves just how this has come to be? How come a child is capable of behaving like this? Even more reason to show some concern and compassion, as opposed to damning her behaviour and citing that as mitigation for the abuse by the 41 year old man.

LurcioLovesFrankie Sat 10-Aug-13 19:53:46

OK, Dowager, simple question requiring a yes/no answer: Do you believe it is possible for a 13 year old to behave in a sexually predatory way with respect to an adult over the age of 18?

PinkPanther27 Sat 10-Aug-13 19:40:28

A judge should never use such language about a vulnerable child, it is extremely inappropriate for him to blame the victim. No, he may not have directly stated "the victim is to blame" - he didn't have to

SinisterSal Sat 10-Aug-13 19:19:08

Jesus Christ Dowager. You have no idea of the dynamic of child abuse at all and you still insist in making post after post. You are making a show of yourself, quite honestly.

BIWI Sat 10-Aug-13 17:51:02

<head:desk>

dowagerdorris Sat 10-Aug-13 17:33:27

I welcome the fact this case has seemingly prompted a review of how
child sex cases are handled, a new system with specially trained judges
is being introduced and that the CPS is now looking at this particular
case to increase the sentence suggests that all is not well...

The judge specifically stated "On these facts, the girl was predatory
and was egging you on. That is no defence when dealing with children..."
So the judge is not actually saying that he is without blame. And the guy did not get found not guilty. He did not get off scot free. He has a 2 year probationary period where he will go to jail if he's caught doing anything suspicious. He has probationary supervision for 3 years, where the police are monitoring his computer use and he has to attend a sex offenders' programme.

Importantly, even the 13yo's council conceded that at no point did he force her to do anything. The 40yo's primary point of guilt is for allowing something to happen that any reasonable adult should know better than to allow to happen. And he should be punished for that, and he is being punished for that. (And without knowing the ins and outs of the case I really can't offer a valid opinion of the sentencing.)

The people who are upset about this case (and at myself), aren't upset
because he was found not guilty he wasn't, he was convicted after all. They're not even arguing about his sentence being too lenient (though the justice system is discussing whether or not to increase it). The entire reason for the outrage is the suggestion that a 13 year old girl can be sexually predatory is it not? I'm reserving my rage as I did not hear the evidence presented.

BIWI Sat 10-Aug-13 14:10:05

dowagerdorris I can only conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse and provocative.

The facts of this case are clear. No need to come to any conclusion on any kind of outrage.

A 41 year old man pleaded guilty to abusing a 13 year old girl.

He is an adult and has a responsibility to ensure that he doesn't abuse children.

He committed the abuse/the crime.

Therefore for anyone to try and blame the child is offensive beyond believe. I fail to understand why you cannot grasp this.

LurcioLovesFrankie Sat 10-Aug-13 13:52:39

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Judges can be wrong.

LeStewpot Sat 10-Aug-13 13:44:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dowagerdorris Sat 10-Aug-13 09:37:26

BIWI What is wrong with me is that I don't want to make a judgement based on newspaper headlines and second hand outrage.

Criminal trials are complex and the judge's comment were a result of deductive reasoning. I was not in court to hear it all, therefore I'm reserving judgement.

dumptytumpty Fri 09-Aug-13 16:56:27

There's been quite as few 'older woman - young boys' cases in the news lately. None, not one of them reported has accused the male as being a sexual predator. So why accuse a 13 year old girl of being one ???

Double standards........as usual. Makes my blood boil.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now