The strange reaction to the death of a child rapist drag queen

[Xoxoxoxoxoxox]

An article by James Esses on the funeral of Darren Moore -a drag queen who was murdered in Cardiff city centre.
Although Moore had a prior history of convictions for child sexual abuse the Council closed off roads in central Cardiff for the funeral and news coverage has been very positive about him.

t.co/cvxmcibFdz

I'm not arguing for nuance. I'm considering the nuance. As clearly none of us know the full detail about it

The child victim(s) and those who heard the evidence, charged, convicted and sentenced him knew all the details, there is/was no nuance there and nor should there be now.

Ah! That makes sense.

And the author of the article in the OP, James Esses, is a former criminal barrister, so would’ve immediately recognised that 4 counts of a rape of a child refers to 4 child victims, not 4 occurences of rape against a single child.

Hence being so sure footed in his article: re mentions of multiple victims.

It happened after 1967 as well. Before 1967 any sexual relationship between men of any age was illegal and men were imprisoned. After 1967 men were imprisoned for consensual relationships with under 21 year olds and then 16 to 18 year olds. So men were prosecuted if they were 19 years old and their partner was 17 years old, while a man of 19 could legally have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old girl. Those prosecutions were homophobic.

That is different from rape.

I can't imagine how the victim(s) felt when they saw what happened at the funeral. He (they) were probably reliving the trauma of what had happened.

I also find his reasons for breaching the conditions of his order totally unconvincing.

if it weren’t for the lost opportunity to prevent harm to others, I’d almost be glad the case against the man who raped me didn’t go ahead

cos here’s a thread with an underage victim, a court case, a conviction, a jail term, an entry on the sex offenders register, a follow up court case on breaching conditions of register and yet

somehow it didn’t happen,
or if it did it wasn’t as bad as made out,
or if it was it didn’t actually do as much damage as it would appear,
or if it did it was somehow partly the victims’ fault, the courts’, the police’s, society -
but never the actual rapists fault - the poor misunderstood thing

I swear some people, if stood at the end of the bed watching a rape take place, would still find a way to handwave it away

so I’ll take the lack of justice as maybe less damaging than a court win but ghoulish discussion of how I probably wasn’t raped

but have the handwavers & apologists thought about how that leaves rapists in their midst - or will it definitely be rape if it happens to you?

how do we distinguish between rape victims who deserve to be believed and those we can just handwave away as ‘whatever particular nuance I’ve decided makes them not-a-victim’?

Yeah, of all the jobs in all the world why would a convicted child rapist choose that one? Why not the night shift at the local Shell garage?

I know, it's horrendous.

I believe Sewell's victims, and I believe you.

It's unreal, isn't it, that a poster here is arguing about nuance , different opinions and looking for/making excuses for the perpetrator of the rape then claims they are not dismissing or blaming the victim - fucking unreal.

BugLight

@BugLight 🌹

Sometimes i have to slap myself.

Nuance! Fucking nuance! Over a raper of children!

It occurs to me that we have just witnessed, in real time, how a convicted child rapist can ‘nuance’ away his past crimes to the point that he gets a crowdfunded coach and horses funeral with a stop outside a local gar bar.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11840417/Paedophile-drag-queen-dead-alleyway-remembered-funeral-cortege-stops-outside-gay-bar.html

As an aside, how come he had a funeral flowers spelling out ‘father’?

It's unreal, isn't it, that a poster here is arguing about nuance , different opinions and looking for/making excuses for the perpetrator of the rape then claims they are not dismissing or blaming the victim - fucking unreal

I'm not making excuses at all. That is completely in your head. I was looking for a discussion about it to try and get somewhere to the actual truth. There's a few well thought out and considered posts from a couple of people which has been helpful. But on the whole, the accusations levied against me and rage is pathetic. So much reading between lines that simply isn't there. Clearly you're spoiling for a fight and I'm not interested in engaging with that.
I'll leave you to it. Carry on. As you were.

None of us know for sure as he was a child when he was convicted of raping children.

I posted the facts that we 100% know earlier in the thread.

In the other thread about this which was deleted and widely repeated across social media, the general story seems to be that this was a homophobic conviction of an over 16 year old having consensual sex with a slightly younger boy.

That isn't true.

And in addition to the rumours and the severity of his punishment, there have been a number of implied references to his crimes from reputable sources suggesting that his crimes were utterly abhorrent.

You're choosing not to see that. The question is why.

Because I'm not glued to social media like you obviously are, I literally saw the article 10 mins before when it came up on my feed, and I haven't seen the discussion about it anywhere else, not did I see the other thread.

Does that answer your question? Or are you sticking with the disingenuous You're choosing not to see that. The question is why when it's quite clear what you actually think.

You're wrong.

There is just no way that in 1999, in a political climate that was trying to equalise the age of consent (a law finally passed in 2000), that a boy under 16 would have been successfully prosecuted for underage sex with another willing close-in-age child.

1. You'd need the parents of the other boy to coerce the child to testifying against him,
2. you'd need a police surgeon to conduct a physical examination of an unwilling child. This is the feminism board, right? Where we know how invasive a rape kit examination is?
3. you'd need the regional division of the crown prosecution service to decide the case was in the public interest and had a chance of succeeding. Remember, the primary witness is allegedly the defendant's willing boyfriend.
4. you'd need to coerce a willing teenage boy into lying about having a relationship so successfully that he didn't break down when the defence for Sewell challenged him on the lie. Remember, in our adversarial process, genuine rape victims frequently fail to convince a jury that they were raped when subjected to a hostile cross-examination by their rapist's barrister. Can we believe a child coached into a lie kept it up?
5. you'd need teenage Sewell to have the most inept criminal defence lawyer in the history of the UK.

No, I assumed you'd have read the thread before wading in with your opinion. Given it's a very sensitive topic, that a fair expectation.

Buglight

The interest in The Truth always favours a male predator over his victims. Always. It is more important not to accuse a male or his reputation than it is to think of those whose lives he destroyed while using them for sex.

*In 2011, Cardiff Crown Court heard Sewell, who was performing as a drag queen at Cardiff nightclub Minsky's at the time, had spent three years teaching gymnastics to children as young as nine^.

None of the gymnastics clubs knew of his previous conviction.

Why didn’t they know? That is very worrying,

About the conviction being for 4 different rapes: can a lawyer here confirm the wording means that? I had thought it meant the rape of the one child known to have occurred on
at least four different occasions.

Boiled I remember from before what horrendous rape you sufferers as a child, and am very sorry that happened to you.

A fair expectation that I'd read a thread that you've told me was deleted? 🤨🙄

High impossible expectations indeed.

No, I expected you to have read this thread @WiIson.

I thought that was abundantly clear from my post, but apologies for not making it clearer.

The only reason I mentioned the other thread at all is that it perpetuated the untruth that Sewell was an over 16 year old who had consensual sex with a slightly younger boyfriend. This is the narrative that his husband and his supporters are spinning. It's not true, and it's abhorrently disrespectful to his victims.

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision · Today 17:05
There is just no way that in 1999, in a political climate that was trying to equalise the age of consent (a law finally passed in 2000), that a boy under 16 would have been successfully prosecuted for underage sex with another willing close-in-age child.

You'd need the parents of the other boy to coerce the child to testifying against him, you'd need a police surgeon to conduct a physical examination of an unwilling child. This is the feminism board, right? Where we know how invasive a rape kit examination is?
you'd need the regional division of the crown prosecution service to decide the case was in the public interest and had a chance of succeeding. Remember, the primary witness is allegedly the defendant's willing boyfriend.
you'd need to coerce a willing teenage boy into lying about having a relationship so successfully that he didn't break down when the defence for Sewell challenged him on the lie. Remember, in our adversarial process, genuine rape victims frequently fail to convince a jury that they were raped when subjected to a hostile cross-examination by their rapist's barrister. Can we believe a child coached into a lie kept it up?
you'd need teenage Sewell to have the most inept criminal defence lawyer in the history of the UK.

Thank you for explaining all that so well.

Russell T. Davies’ television series Queer As Folk (1999-2000) had a 15 year old boy as one of the characters on the Manchester gay scene who was sexually involved with adult men. Can’t remember if there was any suggestion in the show or the press that this should be a police matter.

Unless you have the ability to put it in flashing neon writing I don't see how you could have?

He was involved with Stuart. Stuart was not a nice man and seen as a total arsehole. If he had been straight he would have been wolf whistling schoolgirls in school uniform.
Not all characters in dramas have to be right on you know, some are allowed to be arseholes.

I have no idea about the case in this post, but what you post is simply not true and incredibly naive.