8 year old girl admits lying about rape allegations

[FlyMeToDunoon]

I felt really sad about this for more than one reason.
here

avril which part of the code has been breached?

i am trying to write a complaint but I can't see which bit has been breached.

is it this bit "But she actually seems to have been a more or less willing participant"

which is anaccurate given that the boys have been found guilty of attempted rape?

OK

"I believe that the accuracy part of the code has been breached.

The article says that the girl seems to have been a willing participant in what happened.

Given that the boys involved have been found guilty of attempted rape, I think that to report that the girl was willing participant in her own attempted rape is inaccurate, misleading and distorting.

The overall thrust of the artice is that no harm was done to the girl, that no crime was commited. In fact a verdict of guilty to attempted rape has been delivered. Thus the article is inaccurate, misleading and distorting.

"She was worried about her mother finding out she had been 'naughty' and so withholding sweets. She told her mum that the boys were 'doing sex' with her and had made her pull her pants down, that she had wanted to go home but they made her stay.

But she actually seems to have been a more or less willing participant and, indeed, changed her account of what happened during the trial, exonerating the boys of rape."

The rest of the article is revolting as well, claiming that girls are responsible when they are sexually assualted due to the clothing that they wear, that rape is not a "serious crime", that it is "normal" for boys to rape girls etc but unfortunately I cannot see that these comments, even though they are deeply offensive, have broken your codes."

Because of the girl's age, she 'could' have been a 'willing' participant, and it still be rape. Because of her age, she cannot consent, even if she appears and acts 'willingly'.

What sort of rape this is depends on the other evidence surrounding the case - the fact that witnesses reported to her mum that she was being hurt, forcing her to remove clothes, two onto one etc. (Rape victims of all ages can act willingly, just to ensure they get home alive).

Hence for the commentators, there is room to manoevre, in accordance with their own particular prejudices, without fear of contravening any libel laws. The specific defence would be fair comment. And anyway, libel laws are only of any use to the very rich.

This is the usual untamed, tasteless, vitriolic media feeding frenzy we have seen for the likes of the McCanns, Stephen Gately, and many others. This one is particularly sickening because the target for their vile is an unnamed eight year old child.

Well I've done my best.

It was awful, reading the press complaints code and then the article and not really being able to see where it has been breached.

Our press are so utterly irresponsible.

To think I could write an article saying that women are asking for it and deserve to be raped and it shouldn't be a crime and that could legally be published

i can see that the freedom of the press thing is important, and the idea is that they don't print extremist views because people won't stand for it. But people do stand for it don't they, they love it.

Is there a crime of "inciting violence" towards women, in the same way there is about religion and race and things?

from Flyme's link:
'After she had finished her evidence the judge, Mr Justice Saunders, noted that she appeared exhausted and thanked her, adding: ?No one is suggesting you have done anything wrong. I am the judge. I know when people have done something wrong. You have not done anything wrong. Remember that.?'

so sad.

"Lady blablah I am very pleased that you think all this is just fine and dandy."

FFS will you read what I wrote

The DM write horrific articles about many many subjects every single day. What do you expect from a pig but a grunt?

Is it really news to you that the rhetoric in the press is misogynist bullshit?

"Is there a crime of "inciting violence" towards women, in the same way there is about religion and race and things?"

No of course there isn't. Women's lives just aren't that valuable, why would we want to upset a whole load of men who want to beat them up by giving them the protection of the law?

And besides, there isn't room in prison for all those politicians, magazine and newspaper editors, TV producers, bloggers and pub debaters, who would have to be locked up if we had such a law.

I think, actually, that the reporting of this case demonstrates something really, really fucking horrible.
Think for a minute about the contrast between the reporting of this, and the assault on those two poor boys in Doncaster - and indeed the James Bulger case. Can you spot the difference?

The victims in the other two cases were boys. The victim in this case was a girl.

I don't think it's because it's a girl.The other cases were easier in that the results were so drastic as in death and severe injury. This case is a lot more complicated.

But it isn't that different, Scanty. This was a violent assault, witnessed by another child, and of which the defendents have been convicted.
TB really brutally and frighteningly H, quite possibly one of the main reasons why this case didn't end up with the victim dead or seriously injured is because the victim's mother was alerted by another child and was able to rescue her DD.

She may have been hurt more by these boys if they hadn't been disturbed, thankfully it didn't get to that point. I haven't read all the details, but hadn't read that she sustained anything like the injuries recieved by the victims in the Doncaster/Bulger cases. If they victims in these cases had been girls, I don't think the public outcry and revulsion would have been any less. I still believe this case is more complicated than the other 2 mentioned.

I don't think it is very helpful to compare the cases themselves, but the press reaction is very revealing, and I can't help but think that SGB isn't that far off in her analysis. There seems to be a feeling that this case wasn't so bad - perhaps this is because adult women survive rape all the time? Or maybe because so many men sexually assault women that it is seen as normal male behaviour (is that not the rationale behind the "it was just a game" line).

But even if it was decided that this particular incident of sexual bullying wasn't so bad (and I wouldn't agree) children disturbed enough to attempt to rape a smaller child if not caught or their actions taken seriously are surely likely to go on to other attacks. I don't believe that this sort of behaviour is a one off. Yes children can be cruel and senseless (something that tends to be forgotten whenever child crimes are publicised) but this is not the sort of thing most children do, and I firmly believe that these two boys need a great deal of help (which they are likely to receive in secure care somewhere).

Read this Interesting, raises simeilar points to this thread re perceptions of rape and women/females......

LadyBlahblah, we all know that the DM can be awful. BUT, one of the best articles, giving most facts, and semi-reasonable discussion, was also in the DM. was linked earlier.

I am saddened by the story, but more so by the press and media re-action to it. I went ot my parenting class last night and there were lovely women there saying, oh drs and nurses gone wrong. and i was saddened, becasue i thought, you haven't been following this, only read/seen the news and THAT is how its now been presented.
That made it even worse.

"Again, I don't think the conviction said that and we must remember that they were convicted - despite what the commentators are saying. It just makes women like us lose the argument IMO. "

"Reading this thread you would think they had been set free with a pat on the back. I don't like that because it makes an easy argument for sad commentators to perpetuate that 'feminists' are hysterical and deluded etc etc."

"I think it is too easy to turn everything into a feminist issue, but sometimes that does not win the argument and infact loses ground. And especially in this case when there was a conviction. "

ie you have been saying that people need to shut it with the upset at the press reaction. Justice has been done and that's good enough for you.

Well it's not good enough for me.

And it is not just the daiy mail who have printed pieces saying that there was no crime comitted and no action should have been taken, that is was a game and nothing more. Articles saying that have also appeared on the BBC, in the Independent (both outlets which I would not put in the same grouping as the DM), and other papers and outlets (linked on the BBC etc).

It's not good enough.

I wonder if there will be an appeal.

I asked one of my colleagues why the boys had been convicted of apptempted rape rather than rape. saying i didn't understand the difference, legally, technically. he said that he 'thought' that it was becasue she had retracted her acqusation of penetration part way throught he case. and thats why he couldn't understand why the case hadn't collapsed there and then .
i said that i had read that too, just the bit that some article had said the case shouldn't have continued.
we still feel that this case is very complicated, much more so than doncaster, or bulger.
I still can't quite get my head round it all.

I imagined that the charges of rape were found not guilty as there was not proof beyond reasonable doubt that a rape occured. A combination of a lack of physical evidence and maybe uncertainty as to, when the boys tried to penetrate her, they were actually successful or not.

While there was proof beyond reasonable doubt that the boys attempted to rape her.

I can't understand why people are saying that the case should have been thrown out on teh girls testimony TBH. She didn't "retract her testimony" as an adult might, she seemed to change her story under hours of intense questioning by canny defence barristers. It's not quite the same thing.

The problem with proving rape with very young children is firstly, female sexual organs are not developed so penetration is hard to establish, and also, the children are unable to say definitily whether there was penetration or not, only that there was pain.

Unless there is physical evidence, which is rarely the case, it is very hard to establish. Verdicts of this type are not unusual.

Regarding her comment at the end of cross examination that she had made it up, there was other evidence to support what had happened, including the defendant's own admissions, and that of eye witnesses.

Children are very suggestible, particularly when under pressure and dealing with matters with which they are not comfortable. Any one with children knows that they eventually give an answer to make something or someone go away.

Prior to the human rights act coming in, very young children were not deemed to be competent witnesses - so unless there was other independent evidence, cases of, say abuse, never got anywhere. The Human Rights Act determines that everyone is entitled to protection from physical or sexual abuse. This put more pressure on the courts to hear young witnesses.

A well known example of such a case was the young sister of Baby P who was raped when she was just 2. Her verbal testamony against the defendant was accepted, even though she was only 3 at the time of giving evidence. This would never have happened pre Human Rights Act. She would have been automatically disqualified because of her age. The defence tried to argue this very point on appeal. The appeal was kicked out, the Appeal court saying a warning to the jury on the possible unreliable nature of evidence from young witnesses was sufficient.

People who say this case should not have been brought should look at the alternatives. Yes, other countries do not prosecute such young people, but equally, are more radical with their interventions into peoples lives.

The boys in question will in all probability get a Supervision Order which will involve undertaking an intensive programme regarding sexual issues. This will be onerous. I don't think anyone is arguing that the behaviour these boys displayed was anything other than extremely concerning.

Would anyone consent to their child undertaking such a programme if they hadn't been convicted of a sexual offence? In this country, the answer would be a firm 'no'. And so, court proceedings are used to unlock the intervention that these boys need.

exactly ISNT.
At the end of a long day of questioning she started saying 'yeah' to all the leading questions that were put to her, having been consistent up to that point. She is eight years old.
The point is that you might expect an adult telling the truth to remain firm under repeated questioning because they would 1. understand the importance of doing so and 2. have the intellectual ability to know when the questions were leading. Hence if someone doesn't it is normal practice to take that as undermining their veracity. But anyone who thinks you can assume the same with a child is not taking into account the different capacities of children. So if it had been an adult the case might have collapsed at that point but anyone with a hap'orth of sense knows that if a child caves in at that point it is likely to say more about their ability to withstand the questioning than about whether their whole testimony is false. Fortunately the judge was sensible, the media apparently less so. The defence barrister was of course trying to exploit that weakness. Revoltingly, IMO.

that's v interesting Maria.

I simply don't understand the media response to this. I don't understand why they are hell bent on saying that nothing happened, even after the guilty verdict. What is their motivation?