Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Rapists jailed for just 40 months after judge says 11-year-old victim was 'willing'

217 replies

KRITIQ · 22/02/2012 14:46

story here.

"Judge David Farrell QC jailed them both for just 40 months each as he accepted the claim that she was willing and looked "at least" 14."

Funny, but I thought 14 was still under the age of consent for sex with a 21 year old man, quite apart from the fact that how a girl or woman "looks" should NEVER be a justification for rape, full stop.

I despair.

OP posts:
BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 27/02/2012 14:15

(Sorry, not to qualify, to start work as a trainee solicitor)

seeker · 27/02/2012 14:34

MumsnetHQ- please Khoi move this to a more visited area?

seeker · 27/02/2012 14:34

That would be "could".

KRITIQ · 27/02/2012 14:51

Is it just me, or are others feeling very queasy about the sentiments expressed by jshm2 up thread?

OP posts:
duchesse · 27/02/2012 14:53

Oh, it's not just you, kritiq. I took him to task about it but he hasn't responded yet (I can't believe that a woman would hold those repellent views).

HandDivedScallopsrgreat · 27/02/2012 14:56

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

PacificDogwood · 27/02/2012 14:56

I am glad this has become a bit busier.

I have done my my emailing (AG) and mailing (minister).

seeker, I think your idea for this to go to a more visited area of MN would give the issue even more momentum. Did you report your own post to alert MNHQ?

I am happy to report mine, but don't want to take 'credit' where it's not due IYKWIM.

PacificDogwood · 27/02/2012 14:57
KRITIQ · 27/02/2012 15:00

I don't know the internal gubbins of MN, so please, if anyone can move or flag or whatever the issue elsewhere so it gets more attention, please, please do.

OP posts:
malinois · 27/02/2012 15:04

I just don't understand this sentence at all.

You can read the sentencing guidelines for SOA 2003 here

Starting point for rape of a child under 13 is 10 years. There are no mitigating factors.

How on earth can this be allowed to stand???

PacificDogwood · 27/02/2012 15:07

Ok, I'll ask MN Towers to move to Chat, ok?

StewieGriffinsMom · 27/02/2012 15:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StewieGriffinsMom · 27/02/2012 15:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KRITIQ · 27/02/2012 15:14

Thanks SGM (up against deadlines and glad someone can pick this up and run!)

OP posts:
seeker · 27/02/2012 15:39

I reported an earlier post of mine and asked the thread to be moved, but I haven't heard anything. I also asked for another offensive post tonne deleted and it was. Let's hope this other one goes the same way. So glad we're getting more traffic- well done everyone!

seeker · 27/02/2012 15:41

I reported an earlier post of mine and asked the thread to be moved, but I haven't heard anything. I also asked for another offensive post tonne deleted and it was. Let's hope this other one goes the same way. So glad we're getting more traffic- well done everyone!

NapaCab · 27/02/2012 15:54

Oh, so paedophilia is legal now then as long as the child looks vaguely pubescent and seems "willing"...

Judges like this must be deeply corrupt and immoral to pass sentences like this. It was clearly group rape of a child who was not of an age to consent or know what she was engaged in. Her physical appearance is immaterial. The mental and emotional age of an 11 year old is the same and vulnerable children like this need to be protected by the law. Their needs and rights should come first before those of any adult men because children can't speak for themselves.

I wonder what old Judge David Farrell peruses for entertainment in his spare time? How does he get his kicks? It would be interesting to find out...

SardineQueen · 27/02/2012 16:55

Is this on here, from the article kritiq linked upthread, in case anyone missed it

A spokeswoman for the Attorney General (AG) said: ?I can confirm we will review the case and decide whether to appeal the sentences as possibly unduly lenient by March 9.? After his review the AG may send the case to the Court of Appeal which can replace the sentence.

Beachcomber · 27/02/2012 16:57

Will write too.

PacificDogwood · 27/02/2012 17:05

I've just been told by MN that they feel this thread is in the right section...

Hmm
seeker · 27/02/2012 17:08

Did they say why? I've heard nothing.

PacificDogwood · 27/02/2012 17:13

"Hi PacificDogwood, Thanks for mailing in with this suggestion. The thread does seem to be picking up speed where it is. We will keep and eye on it and see what happens but would like to leave it where it is for now. Best wishes RebeccaMNHQ"

seeker · 27/02/2012 17:18

But it only picked up because we've been bumping it for 24 hours! It is so in the wrong place.

swallowedAfly · 27/02/2012 17:31

just keep thinking of what an 11 year old is.

have a think about what movies come with a 12 rating - what our laws deem appropriate for a child to view in fiction in films or video games. i think sexual swearwords make a film inappropriate for a 12 year old - so the word 'fuck' is deemed unsuitable for a child.

think of how they're 5 years short of being allowed to buy cigarettes and an adult who sells them a cig can be prosecuted and lose their license and why that is enshrined in law.

think of how their parents can be prosecuted if they don't make said child go to school even if the child utterly refuses and kicks and bites and runs away when they're trying to make her go to school.

think how they're either in the last year of primary school or just starting at secondary.

then imagine them in a stair well in a block of flats and imagine the kind of men who would want to have sex with them - 2 men, in a stairwell choosing to have sex with a child one after the other whilst filming their actions.

then imagine what kind of man would say that that was understandable because they looked 14 and were willing, the kind of man with the opportunity to give a life sentence to child rapists who decides on 40 months as the sentence.

he needs to be fired and we need a massive shake up in attitudes to the rape of female children. an 11 year old is not a whore or a temptress. she is a child and in this case presumably a very damaged and vulnerable child. all those who defend the rape of older children need to look at this and see that yes there does need to be a cut off point (and the law says it's 16) and once you corrode that line it leads to their being no line at all.

no one NEEDS to have sex with a child. no one has the right to sleep with a child (and sleep with is a generous euphemism in this instance seeing as we are talking about grown men taking turns fucking a child in a stair well in a block of flats). if an 11 year old doesn't know to run like hell from two adult men who want to fuck her in a stair well that's not consent, that is a clear sign that she has already been massively failed and let down by adults and it does not justify her further abuse.

PacificDogwood · 27/02/2012 17:48

Well said, swallowedaFly Sad.

seeker, that's what I feel, it's the same few posters bumping it rather than a wider audience.

I suppose we can see how it goes and then ask MN Towers again...

IMO this goes so far beyond any kind of specialist feminist issue, it's unreal. On whose planet is that sentence appropriate to the crime and how on earth could a judge, Queen's Counsel no less (I bet Lizzie would be proud Hmm), come up with this justification??