in thiking you don't generally tend to have sex with people who have been stalking you?

[RoyallyFuckedOff]

And that teenager can't groom and adult?

Iwww.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30813335

From the judge Judge Greenberg said she believed the victim was "intelligent and manipulative" and "showed no compunction" about lying when it suited herJudge Greenberg said she believed the victim was "intelligent and manipulative" and "showed no compunction" about lying when it suited her

The charming fellow had sex with a teenager the same week his wife was miscarrying their baby and apparently that was grounds for him being "weak".

AIBU to think he is scum and that the judge is a rape myth peddling idiot who should never be allowed to hold a gavel after insulting a victim?

TheChandler
This is a thread of more than 200 posts of which a handful are mine, but by all means I will stop discussing this if I am offending you. If you try and look back through your own and others' posts with an objective eye you may find that I am not "labouring" my point any more than you are "labouring" yours. If you also re-read what you wrote with an objective eye you might see that you are showing all the attributes that you mistakenly ascribe to me. Can you honestly say that you didn't "have the answer in your head" before reading my comments? Can you honestly say that you are capable of reaching a conclusion other than the one you have set out to prove? Your reaction is typical of cognitive dissonance, where people avoid processing a piece of information they find jarring or inconvenient by looking for reasons to claim there's something wrong either with the information or with the person delivering it. I can assure you that I do not have a fixed answer in my head and I'm perfectly open to reaching a different conclusion. Can you say the same? This is a very complex subject and one with a wide range of different situations and outcomes. I would expect anyone examining it rationally to acknowledge that it's impossible to come to a fixed, black and white conclusion that will apply across the board.

I also think perhaps you haven't actually read what I've said. I haven't ignored the fact that grooming often happens, I fully agree that it does and I have mentioned it several times. I have not defended Stuart Kerner, in fact I said he sounds like a manipulative liar. Where did I say I thought it better for girls to have an older man? Where did I say we shouldn't have rules against sex with below 16s, or in duty-of-care situations? And where did I say there is a rule that fits all? That's the opposite of what I said, which is that the law provides for nuances and treats each case individually, and that's good because there are nuances and each case is different. I'm sorry if you find that "skewed" or "dangerous" but that's the way the law currently works and rightly so. Campaigning for a blanket approach to these situations, as some seem to be advocating on this thread, is what would be dangerous. Stuart Kerner did not get a "very light sentence", he got a completely standard sentence for this type of crime (in fact 18 months is actually towards the higher end of the sentencing range), and although he was perhaps lucky to get it suspended, that's not uncommon in cases where someone is unlikely to reoffend and has already suffered other consequences (loss of career in this case).

I don't like the victim blaming and the suspended sentence, a stronger message needs to be going out.

'The main objection is to the unnecessary and victim blaming comments by the judge'

Yes that's the issue - what the judge said!! Blaming the victim - using words like 'grooming' and 'stalking' Showing an outrageous ignorance of the psychological processes involved, undermining the victim and making the victim responsible for his actions.

I hope this judge is made to account for herself and either given some suitable training or sacked.

"Do you really still believe the judge had to say what she did?"
I have said repeatedly that I think the judge shouldn't have talked about grooming. The rest of her comments were just an overview of the all aspects of the situation which is what judges always do in sentencing.

"Do you really believe that the not guilty verdict on other charges means the jury disbelieved the victim?"
No, as I said before and as the judge said, it means that the jury did not treat her as a reliable witness. That doesn't mean they thought she was definitely lying but it means they were not prepared to rely on her word without corroborating evidence. Even on the charges where there was corroborating evidence they didn't convict unanimously.

Where on earth have I said I'm "convinced" he "cannot possibly" have been grooming the girl from a young age? Maybe he was but according to the judge there was "no evidence" of that and even the prosecution said something similar, so in the absence of evidence we have to give benefit of doubt rather than judging people for things that "might" have happened. That's unlike Staircase's case where her account of the teacher's behaviour does sound like it amounted to grooming.

And I beg your pardon but many people have complained about the sentence, in this thread and elsewhere, including writing to the AG to ask for a review of it. If you're referring to what I said about the sentence in my last comment, I was replying to TheChandler claiming SK got a "very light sentence".

I will bow out now because there isn't much point having a discussion about things I haven't even said, but I really think it would benefit some people to try and reflect on whether they are even willing to consider other points of view. Of course it's easier to only listen to things that provide unqualified support for your opinions but living in an echo chamber inevitably means you will have an incomplete picture of reality.

No HelenPat they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the under-sixteen charges.

I have to think of the days when it was a capital offence to steal goods worth two shillings from a shop and juries regularly found that the goods were only worth one shilling and eleven pence halfpenny (that's one halfpenny less than two shillings, as younger readers may not know).

Perhaps they just did not want to find him guilty of the more serious offence. Who knows? Even on what he was convicted of he has been lucky in his sentence - it's obviously not his fault that the judge also talked a lot of bollocks when she handed the sentence out - and he should abandon any appeal against conviction and put an end to this.

HouseWhereNobodyLives et al, I totally agree that Kerner could well have been grooming this girl from the age of 11/12. It's pretty common in these cases and we have no evidence that he didn't. Presumably he had known her from the time that she was that age.

I actually don't think it's any worse at 12 than at 14. I was no more sophisticated at 14 than I had been a couple of years previously really. I was still a kid.

HelenPat Can you honestly say that you didn't "have the answer in your head" before reading my comments? Can you honestly say that you are capable of reaching a conclusion other than the one you have set out to prove? Your reaction is typical of cognitive dissonance, where people avoid processing a piece of information they find jarring or inconvenient by looking for reasons to claim there's something wrong either with the information or with the person delivering it.

No, I had no outcome in mind when I read your comments. You can put whatever sensationalist labels on it you like and it won't mean very much other than you disagree, but your comments are simply not as important as a judgment, and they cannot be responded to in the same way, not least because you have made a number of mistakes (some of which have been pointed out to you).

As for teleological thinking, its not something that is considered bad in an argument, unless it is being used for the purpose of change. Sometimes it can come out of instinct (if you know something is wrong, or askew, or suspicious, it quite often is and a suspicious mind can lead you to the right answer, backed up by evidence).

I also think perhaps you haven't actually read what I've said. I think confuse challenging your beliefs with a failure to read them properly. Nevertheless, several posters have taken the trouble to respond to you, even though what you write is so long winded its really difficult to work out what the point is you are actually making.

Normally when someone repeatedly argues in favour of something so much as you have done, they have a very strong belief - so why don't you just come out and say what it is?

I would expect anyone examining it rationally to acknowledge that it's impossible to come to a fixed, black and white conclusion that will apply across the board.

Would you now? That's very strange, because we have fixed laws stating that it is illegal, and sentencing guidelines. Most people would call that pretty black and white. Do you really think you know better than lawyers, judges, criminal psychologists, counsellors who deal with victims and so on?

HelenPat No, as I said before and as the judge said, it means that the jury did not treat her as a reliable witness.

That's absolutely not true. Its to do with quality of available evidence, not the reliability of the witness. And you have just made that up, which is a pretty strange thing to do.

Of course it's easier to only listen to things that provide unqualified support for your opinions but living in an echo chamber inevitably means you will have an incomplete picture of reality.

Well, we all have to comply with the law, or suffer the consequences, whether we like it or not. As a society, we are only now waking up to the consequences of grooming, so what you suggest is a return to what is now considered rather old fashioned, unenlightened thinking - I don't think that's very likely to happen, so you might find yourself in an echo chamber of one, along with your own incomplete picture of reality.

The jury may as I said above have been merciful; or they may even have believed that there was no sexual activity until she was sixteen; or they just weren't sure about it. He wouldn't be the first to persuade himself that after sixteen it was "all right" - until 2003 it was as far as the criminal law was concerned, although you could lose your job and be out of teaching (and a good thing too).

But so what? There cannot be a secondary school teacher in the land who does not know that it is not all right now. It is indeed passing strange that to the SKs of this world sixth formers still become "legal" as they reach eighteen during the year up to A-Levels - if they have sex at that stage a prosecution depends on proof of grooming which may not always be easy. I would not be sorry to see the law changed to make it unlawful after eighteen and while they were still teacher-and-pupil and for a sort time after that - perhaps with a lesser penalty.