My feed
Premium
Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

former Dragon's Den panelist trial

173 replies

onceuponalurker · 29/01/2016 18:46

AIBU to not see all the threads about this now acquitted Dragon? Where is the outrage?

OP posts:
Report
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
NeedsAsockamnesty · 31/01/2016 10:58

it is my understanding that the majority of child witnesses have the same problem.

Report
DrSeussRevived · 31/01/2016 09:58

No worries.

I suspect CPS also thought that the fact the sex was undenied and the monetary gift undenied gave them a good chance of a conviction on the paying for sexual services charge.

Report
Andrewofgg · 31/01/2016 09:40

Now I come to think a bit more DrSeussRevived you are right and I was wrong - it was right to go to trial. Sorry.

Report
DrSeussRevived · 31/01/2016 09:29

Andrew, I can see how the lack of testimony from the victim would make it hard to reach a beyond reasonable doubt verdict. I am glad the prosecution went ahead though as the facts of a person having sex with a 13 year old should be examined in court!

Report
Andrewofgg · 31/01/2016 09:08

As for him being vile and disgusting, he is indeed. But if being vile and disgusting in sexual or other matters was a crime we would need a lot more prisons and they would not all be for men.

Report
Andrewofgg · 31/01/2016 09:07

They didn't hear from 13 herself -because her account to the police was inconsistent with other evidence - draw your own conclusions as doubtless the jury did. The prosecution called the older girl who was with her (and whom he did not molest). TBH once the decision was taken that they could not call her I am surprised that the prosecution went ahead at all, because there was an elephant in the room.

Report
Veritat · 31/01/2016 02:41

Absolutely we can, and indeed I do. But that is on the basis that his conduct was vile and disgusting even if his partner had been over 16.

Report
squoosh · 31/01/2016 02:34

But we can wish him financial and reputational ruin.

Report
Veritat · 31/01/2016 02:26

If this girl had a fake driving license that he'd asked to see, I'm sure that would have come up in the reports. Faking documents being more in the "criminal gang" than "young teenager" area.

But all that is irrelevant, given that the law does not require men in this situation to demand ID.

It doesn't fucking matter 'what she was expecting' because she was a child.

It sort of does, if she went out deliberately intending to deceive a man into thinking she was over 16 and willing to have sex. I'm not saying she did, I don't know enough about the case, but given that it is an essential element of the offence that the prosecution must prove that he knew or should have believed her to be under age, it matters quite a lot.

Just to make it clear, I absolutely agree that this man is a disgusting piece of utter shit. I absolutely agree that the girl needed to be protected. But the fact remains that a jury who heard and saw all the evidence, and in particular had the chance of seeing the defendant and the witnesses give evidence, were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the offence charged. And I don't think that, on the basis of brief newspaper reports, any of us can seriously claim to know better than they did.

Report
DrSeussRevived · 30/01/2016 23:54

Exactly, Needs. Just like a person who doesn't want to risk raping someone makes himself as sure as possible that the someone has capacity to consent.

Nothing terrible has ever happened to a man (or woman) who decided to play safe and not have sex on a specific occasion.

Report
NeedsAsockamnesty · 30/01/2016 21:29

A person who does not want to have sex with a child makes him or herself as sure as they can that a person who looks like they could be 16+ actually is.

If they do not do so then they risk having sex with a child. It is not rocket science

Report
nebulae · 30/01/2016 20:43

Thats very scary indeed,you had the power to do something and didnt.

I had very little power actually. I'd very much have preferred to find him guilty but the prosecution left me (and 10 other jurors) with little choice. They did a piss poor job to be honest.

Report
DrSeussRevived · 30/01/2016 20:43

And the jury deliberated for 4h 15 mins. That's a long time.

Report
DrSeussRevived · 30/01/2016 20:39

No, they believed that it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I've sat on a jury that deliberated a long time because there was reference in court to a third person who hadn't been prosecuted. We all believed the victim, all believed the accused had been there and been involved in the attack, the only area we were unsure about was how active the third person had been and - obscurely - was it "fair" to convict the two if the third wasn't there?

Beyond reasonable doubt is, rightly, a very hard standard to face and the jury room can be swayed by various points of view.

Report
dustarr73 · 30/01/2016 20:36

Nope. As I said in an earlier post, I sat on a jury in a similar case and found the accused not guilty, despite firmly believing he was guilty

Thats very scary indeed,you had the power to do something and didnt.

Report
nebulae · 30/01/2016 20:21

But the jury must have believed him some what,you know wiht him being aquitted.

Nope. As I said in an earlier post, I sat on a jury in a similar case and found the accused not guilty, despite firmly believing he was guilty.

Report
dustarr73 · 30/01/2016 20:18

But the jury must have believed him some what,you know wiht him being aquitted.

Report
MaisyMooMoo · 30/01/2016 20:17

ffs dustarr you just don't get it do you.

Report
DrSeussRevived · 30/01/2016 20:17

"We don't know that the jury believed him. The verdict isn't about what the jury believes, it's about what the jury believes has been proved."

Well, quite.

The website requires members to be 18 or over; if he thought she was 17 then he already thought she'd lied about her age to be listed....

So, if she actually had been 17, and he'd asked her a few questions to double check her age, what's the worst that could've happened? She laughed at him a bit for his concerns? Yeah, that would've mean much more terrible than "accidentally" penetrating a 13 year old.

Report
dustarr73 · 30/01/2016 20:16

Maisy you brought the legal age porn up not me.Yes shes not the legal age nor was it porn.

Report
MaisyMooMoo · 30/01/2016 20:15

scarydinasaur. Agree absolutely.

Report
Scarydinosaurs · 30/01/2016 20:13

The likely hood of this girl being the only one on that website who is underage is pretty slim.

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

MaisyMooMoo · 30/01/2016 20:13

Yes but they are the legal age,so not the same thing at all.

Except she wasn't, she was 13!

Report
dustarr73 · 30/01/2016 20:11

Yes but they are the legal age,so not the same thing at all.

Report
MaisyMooMoo · 30/01/2016 20:07

In porn there is a market for 'barely legal' where men get off on knowing the girl is legal but doesn't look it. This is what he was trying to achieve in reality hence why he targeted someone so young looking.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.