Edward Mordaunt avoids jail after attempting to groom a 14 year old girl

[badbaduncle]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11204029/Tory-MP-Penny-Mordaunts-brother-avoids-jail-admitting-sending-sex-images-decoy-schoolgirl.html

I posted this last night and do not understand why it was deleted.
I post again without comment.

Noshe is not responsible for anyones behaviour but her own. And she has publicly stated which side of the issue she is on, and it’s not the one that promotes safeguarding of women and children.

Given we might be heading towards yet another PM shortly and Penny Mordant’s behaviour in parliament today (apparently she was point scoring/making a bad situation worse by repeating the ‘not hiding under her desk’ comment) I think potential influences on her political beliefs bears scrutiny.

No mention of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order though?

The sentence doesn't surprise me given the early plea. I think the sentencing guidelines are too low but the sentence follows them.

This will not help his sister's bid for senior positions. Even though she is not responsible for his behaviour, it becomes a weapon people can use against her.

Either of her brothers behaviour…

I never understand the 'good character' nonsense. This man tried to groom a child and meet her to rape her.

How nice for victims, to know they’ve been groomed by a good person. Or does good character just mean having rich influential relatives?

That’s the truth in plain English. Sickening.

You’d think Penny would now appreciate that some men pretend to be someone else, to access children. Thats why single sex spaces matter, biological sex matters.

Except that the jury has no role in sentencing. That is entirely down to the judge. And no, it isn't lawyer speak for being able to buy your way out of trouble.

Previous good character is considered as mitigation when sentencing, but its impact depends on the severity of the crime. To show previous good character, the offender needs to show that they have no previous convictions at all and that they had lived a productive life (so, for example, someone who has spent years living on benefits and abusing drugs would not qualify). Things like longstanding charity work or voluntary work help but are not essential to establishing previous good character. Most posters on here would be considered as having previous good character.

Where someone has used their previous good character to facilitate the offence, their good character would not be regarded as a mitigating factor and could be an aggravating factor, leading to a higher sentence.

Previous good character can reduce the sentence. However, no matter how good the offender's previous character, it can never justify stepping outside the sentencing guidelines.

I think we should all hold hands and support this Minor Attracted Person at this difficult time.

Said with every ounce of sarcasm I can muster. I can't help but feel totally helpless in terms of what goes on and the naff consequences these type of people face.

‘He said: 'I take into account that as a result of the job performed by your sibling which is an MP your case is somewhat different to other offenders'. I sit here in this court daily and view many of these cases and as far as I can see your case has not been dealt with in any way inappropriate or different to other cases’

Is it just me that thinks this statement from the judge just contradicts each point made? So his sister is an MP, so his case is different but then he says but you haven't treated differently? He's literally just started his case is different!

No, it doesn't. The judge is being clear that, although his case is different, he isn't being treated the same as any other offender. To be honest, I don't think it is the wisest thing for the judge to have said, but it isn't contradictory.

And only 3 comments allowed under newspaper article then "we aren't accepting anymore comments "

How strange 🙄

I say it again. Where is the SHPO? Because if he hasn’t got one then he has been treated differently.

Whilst it is not mentioned in the Daily Mail's report, he was made the subject of a 7-year SHPO.

@prh47bridge Hmmm, would most people would have a 10 one?

If 6 months suspended for 2 years is a 'normal sentence' for grooming a child then the issue is that the sentence does not fit the crime. He didn't ''fall'' into an A level group chat by mistake, nor did he ''accidentally'' send pictures of genitals. All of this was deliberate. I wonder how many times he (and others like him) do this before they are caught? With such a lenient sentence there's no motivation to stop.

Disgusting reprehensible behaviour.

Even worse is Penny Mordant advocating for men like this to have access to women's spaces and therefore an abundant supply of vulnerable girls.

No, 5-years seems pretty standard where this is the only offence. However, most of those convicted of this offence are also convicted of other offences at the same time, resulting in a longer SHPO.

No, it isn't a normal sentence for grooming a child. Mordaunt was not convicted of that offence. If he had incited a child to engage in sexual activity or met a child following grooming he would be in prison. He was convicted of sexual communication with a child. For a first offender, that normally leads to a suspended sentence or even a community order for the least serious offences.

Re Penny Mordaunt, an awful lot seems to be being built on her stating that, "trans men are men, trans women are women and non-binary identities are valid", which largely reflects the law - a trans man who has been through gender reassignment is legally a man. Liz Truss supporters (including the Daily Fail) seem to have seized on that and built it up to far more than it was to use it against her. However, I am happy to be corrected if anyone can point to her actually advocating for men like her brother to have access to women's spaces.

@prh47bridge

I'd argue he wasn't convicted of that offence because he was unknowing talking to undercover police officers. The intent was there and should matter.

Re Penny Mordant, while she may not have explicitly advocated for such men to have access to female spaces, however her position that ''trans women are women'' indicates her support for their having women's rights - i.e. access to women's changing rooms, women's toilets, women's groups - despite being biologically male. She makes no distinction between a trans woman and a woman. We can argue over language, however to me it is disingenuous to suggest that her position is being built up or that she has not come out in support of biological men being treated as women - she has. She has made statements that trans women are women and that she is a supporter of women's rights at a time where there is a dialogue around precisely whether trans women should or should not have such access. When legal controversy has arisen around trans women being granted access to female rape support groups etc. I do not accept the law is either clear or properly thought out. I also reserve the right to maintain that biology is an immutable fact that no surgery or aesthetic adjustment can alter. She is in a position of influence and therefore in my view has a duty to be objective and not led by her personal views informed by her brothers life choices.

No, he wasn't convicted of that offence because his actions didn't cross the threshold. The threshold is inciting sexual activity. Whilst his communications were inappropriate, he didn't incite sexual activity.

Re Penny Mordaunt, saying that a trans woman is a woman is correct in law (which is what she was talking about at the time) and does not indicate support for them having access to women only spaces. She has made it clear that there is a distinction between a trans woman and a woman, that trans women are not biologically women.

a trans woman is a woman is correct in law

Which law are you referring to, prh47bridge?

Only a tiny proportion of "trans women" are considered to be equivalent to women in law, those who hold a gender recognition certificate, and even then there are exemptions to both the GRA and EA. Do you believe that a GRC is a requirement to be considered a "trans woman", @prh47bridge?

Re Penny Mordaunt, saying that a trans woman is a woman is correct in law

Not according to the Equality Act, which says a woman is a female of any age, and a man is male of any age.

Not according to the Gender Recognition Act, although says that transgender people with a gender recognition certificate are legally treated (with some exceptions) as having changed sex, but most transgender people don't have a GRC so that's beside the point.

Is there some other law that says TWAW, TMAM?

Extract from press release from Mordaunt when she launched the GRA reform consultation in 2018:

* "The government will consider the results of the consultation carefully before making any decision on how to reform the GRA. We are not necessarily* proposing self-declaration of gender."

If women hadn't walked the streets up and down the country, urging people to complete the consultation, I have no doubt that self id is exactly what Mordaunt would have recommended.

Her twin brother is a TRA and was engaged to David Paisley who has lobbied against women's rights and campaigned against the LGB Alliance.

www.newsbreak.com/news/2520441115125/minister-penny-mordaunt-s-twin-brother-claims-the-tory-party-is-complicit-in-hatred-of-gay-people

If women hadn't walked the streets up and down the country, urging people to complete the consultation, I have no doubt that self id is exactly what Mordaunt would have recommended.

YY.