Judges are mad.

[ItsGrimUpNorth]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241635/Soldier-41-sex-girl-13-spared-jail-woman-judge-says-did-run ning.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

I know it's the Mail and I know I shouldn't be reading it but I was staggered by this story.

lol at your disclaimer

worst thing about it is that it panders to the 'oh poor men, she led him astray' (that you also see in a lot of affairs, the women getting cross with the other women)

what is even more appalling in this case was that she was 13! And troubled, i.e. looking for affection.

You know, in many ways, it doesn't surprise me that this judge was female. Just another woman letting a man get off from his responsibilities.

so men are vulnerable because they are stupid (so the judge points out), but she isn't vulnerable as a child because she's female. It's mind boggling.

That's a really silly story about Anita Pallenberg isn't it?
I don't think that The Rolling Stones look too great themselves these days either!

This kind of thing makes me REALLY mad. I am not wanting to demonise unnecessarily, but he KNEW he was having sex with a girl who was underage. There was nothing in his defence that suggested he unwittingly thought she was over the age of consent.

The fact that ?many 14 year old girls are sexually active? does not mean anything if we respect the law in this country that the age of consent is 16. We are not talking about two 15 year olds ?having a fumble? !?!?

I thought it was automatically statutory rape, especially if the man was quite a bit older.

yes I thought it was rape too.

also if she was 'troubled and disturbed' then I fail to see how it can't be sheer exploitation of a vulnerable minor.

And prople wonder why rape convictions are so infrequent.