man jailed after meeting 12 year old girl on a dating app who pretended to be 19

[BorneBackCeaselesslyIntoThePas]

Carl Hodgson, 27, brought the girl to his Manchester quayside apartment after he met her on a dating app - not realising she used a fake profile which claimed she was 'experienced'.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6679531/Office-worker-spent-night-12-year-old-girl-jailed.html

Well, we'll have to each believe the other is wrong then because I'm not going into work on Monday and telling my very experienced (written textbooks on the topic, regularly testify in court on the topic) colleagues that our policies are wrong because someone on the Internet read a lot of newspaper articles.

I'm sorry, newspaper articles don't show you a 10th of what really happens. This hit the press because of the man had his life ruined angle. 11 year old girl in a council estate has a relationship with her parents friend? You might have to search harder for it. I also did follow your link and the legal definition of rape for under 13s categorically does not mention consent.

The law also doesn't see a difference between someone's husband having sex with them in their sleep and a stranger breaking into their home and raping them by force. Or (at least in terms of charges, disappointingly he wasn't convicted) a man breaking into a room where his friend was having sex with a woman, swapping in without even asking her and leaving again.

Rape is about consent, not force. A child cannot consent. An unconscious woman cannot consent. You don't need bruises to have been raped. This matters.

Hmmm, I actually looked like 16 at that age but I sure as hell didn't think or talk like I was 16.

Do you genuinely believe that no adult should be punished for having sex with a child, if the adult can show that the child was involved in creating the situation?
It depends if the adult knew the child was underage. If the adult knew (either it was obvious or the child disclosed it) then obviously they should be prosecuted. But if the child convincingly presented as an adult in an adults-only environment and claimed to be an adult then I don’t see how the other adult can be expected to know. In the Scottish case mentioned above, even the police thought the 12yo was an adult.

The adult is not expected to just know. They are expected to find out for certain, before engaging in potentially criminal acts. Ignorance is not a defence. If you can't be certain then don't have sex. It's not rocket science. The onus is on each adult to check they're not about to do something criminal!

Children, even very damaged ones who are acting out dangerous and unhealthy behaviour, need to be protected by adults.

I am astonished and sickened by the sheer number of posters here willing to place all or some of the blame/responsibility on children.

It depends if the adult knew the child was underage

You mean you want a reasonable belief clause added as in rape trials ? I think that would be a disaster.

So, what you're saying is that the 12 year old was a sexual aggressor and should be held accountable for the crime perpetrated against her, Aeonium ?

Is that all 12 year olds or just this child? Are 12 year old boys who are preyed upon either by women or men also sexual aggressors if they do something you believe makes them culpable? Were the 12 year olds in Rotherham also responsible for what men did to them there because they were in a brothel?

I’m not saying the 12yo should be held accountable. I’m saying the adult should not be held accountable if there was good reason to believe the child was an adult.

Sheesh.

"She said she was 18 and she looked it so I believed her"

Paedophile rings would have an absolute field day. They'd be making fake ID and the works, and getting off scott free.

In this case the girl herself admits that she lied though. And she was on an adult dating site.

Read this last night.

2 and a half years?

I wonder, if it would have been a 12 year old boy, would he have got longer?

Fucking dispicable. The judge especially.

In this case the girl herself admits that she lied though. And she was on an adult dating site.

^

And??

Im saying the adult should not be held accountable

^

Definiton of an adult? Accountability.

I fail to see how people think this is a complex issue.

If a shopkeeper served a 12 year old alcohol believing her to be 19 they would be prosecuted. It is your responsibility to check you are on the right side of the law. All over 18s have proper ID these days, they have to. I had to carry mine up until around 30 to guarantee getting served alcohol.

It's a good reminder for many people, particularly loser men in their late 20s who prefer hook ups with teenagers.

She is not a femme fatale trying to ruin decent men's lives. She is a fucked up child and society needs to protect her.

When I was a wee thing I had men all paying a lot of attention to me at a wedding. Naturally I loved it when they told me I looked 18 or 21. However, unlike this girl I really enjoyed telling them I was 13. (For the looks on their faces )

I have had a look at the photos later and I looked - 13! I do seriously wonder about men who say they didn’t know how old a child was.

And??
Well funnily enough paedos don’t go hunting for kids on adult dating sites. I imagine the guy was horrified to discover she’s under age.

She is not a femme fatale trying to ruin decent men's lives. She is a fucked up child and society needs to protect her.

But I dont see how she or anyone else is being protected by punishing someone who isn’t a paedophile and didn’t know she was a child?

Overstory what if the girl looked older, says she was older AND carried fake ID.

he was 27 he preyed on something he thought was 19 (and therefore younger than him) and groomed her into doing what he wanted.

The fact she was even younger makes it even more shocking. So many people say it was an adult website as if somehow we should believe everything we read on the internet

I'm cheered by the judge's verdict and sentence in this case (particularly as the judiciary have done so much recently that I have despaired at...)

I'm thoroughly depressed by the comments under the article (and the amount of downvotes and upvotes they get) that say that the girl (let me emphasize GIRL) is to blame, along with the GIRL's mother.

I've been a 12 year old girl, I've been a 19 year old woman. There's a big difference between acting and looking old enough to get a drink or buy cigarettes and acting and looking old enough to take to bed.

And even if older people struggle to tell how old teens are (I know I can't sometimes), their peers absolutely know. I don't believe for one second that a 22 year old would be fooled by a pre-teen claiming to be 19

And he's a scumbag of the highest order to send round that photo

She is not a femme fatale trying to ruin decent men's lives. She is a fucked up child and society needs to protect her.
This this this!

But I dont see how she or anyone else is being protected by punishing someone who isn’t a paedophile and didn’t know she was a child?

Because it's illegal whether he knew or not. Ignorance is no defence for this kind of crime. It's unfortunate for him that he's broken a law he didn't intend to break, but if he'd taken a bit more care he could have avoided breaking it. He knew she was not 19, he didn't really care how old she was, and he would have carried on not caring. This only came to light because of the girls mother. It's not like he had a crisis of conscience and worried she might be underage. If that thought crossed his mind it didn't stop him.

"
Sexual activity with a child
(1)
A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—
(a)
he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)
the touching is sexual, and
(c)
either—
(i)
B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or
(ii)
B is under 13.
(2)
A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved—
(a)
penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,
(b)
penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,
(c)
penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body, or
(d)
penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis,
is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
(3)
Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."

Reasonable belief is a defence if the child is between 13, 14 or 15.

It is not a defence if the child is 12 or under. Because 12 or under is really fucking young.

I am comfortable with the law as is stands. It seems like a good balance to me.
I am also comfortable with the fact the CPS guidelines for teens in the middle section 13, 14, 15 there should be no prosecution if it's consensual and they are similar it age.

I see others want the law changed.

What should 12 or under be reduced to? 10? 8?

Girls are starting puberty earlier and earlier - plenty of DDs friends and DD could be taken for 15 or 16 so "reasonable belief". That's age 11.

How about 10?
Or no age at all?

Men are rarely prosecuted for the "in the middle" stuff (13, 14, 15) if it's consensual so how far do we want this pushed down?

But she is still only 12. If she'd have said she was 18 to a shopkeeper in an off licence shop that has a sign on the door saying "don't come in unless you're over 18" and purchased alcohol, that shopkeeper has still sold a 12 year old alcohol, and their defense that she shouldn't have been in the shop at all or told him she was 18 wouldn't stand.

I do see what you're saying, and stuff like this must be worrying to 16-17 year old young men who don't want to do the wrong thing but haven't yet got decent life experience and whom it is reasonable that they are dating people around about the age of consent. I get that somebody like that could legitimately mistake a 15 year old for a 16 year old if they told them that was their age. This isn't that scenario though. At the end of the day a 27 year old committed a sexual act on a 12 year old. I can't get over the sending a picture to his mate either, the absolute wanker.

Incidentally it looks like she herself has admitted nothing. She's been "silent and uncooperative" - I assume the establishment of fact that she claimed to be 19 is because it's been found written in the dating app.

There is a crime, and a victim. I just don't know how justice could possibly operate if perpetrators got of because they didn't think they were doing anything wrong. That's not an excuse to get out of a speeding ticket, and it's not an excuse to get out of sexual activity with a minor.

And even if older people struggle to tell how old teens are (I know I can't sometimes), their peers absolutely know. I don't believe for one second that a 22 year old would be fooled by a pre-teen claiming to be 19
That's why Think 21 changed to Think 25. Basically the further away from 18 you get, the harder it is to tell someone's age.

Aeonium

They are protected by the refusal of society to accept "I didn't know" as a reasonable defence, they are protected by adult men making some effort to ascertain the age of people they want to sleep with, they are protected from drawn out court cases when any form of Nuance can be claimed in the case of an adult man having sex with a child.

Nobody needs to sleep with teenagers. If you think you can't be certain, just don't do it.

Another "no excuses" crime is paying for sex with someone who has been trafficked.

The man (and it's pretty much always going to be a man) is guilty irrespective of whether he knew that was the position or not.

The reason we have these laws is because the offences are deemed very serious and there's no point in having a law about it at all if the man can just go "I didn't know" and a sexist society says "OK mate fair enough".

The reason we have these laws is as a deterrent.
IF you do this heinous thing then no ifs no buts you go to prison.

Our laws deem 12 or under as a child that is TOO YOUNG or sex, irrespective of what they look like or what they wear or how they behave or where they go or what time it is.

There is a reason for that.

It is awful that people want to see laws like this removed and men - all sorts of men - given free reign.