Judge calls a 13yr old victim a 'sex predator'...

[Ammi]

A paedophile who avoided jail after a judge and prosecutor described his 13-year-old victim as "predatory" in court could have his sentence reviewed.

Neil Wilson, 41, was handed an eight-month suspended sentence and walked free from court on Monday.

But the case has prompted an outcry from children's charities and his sentence is now being examined by the Attorney General's office.

It will decide whether it should ask the Court of Appeal to consider whether the punishment was unduly lenient.

Prosecutor Robert Colover reportedly told Snaresbrook Crown Court in London: "The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced."

Passing sentence, Judge Nigel Peters then said he had taken into account that the girl looked and behaved "a little bit older" than she was.

"The girl was predatory and was egging you on. That is no defence when dealing with children but I am prepared to impose a suspension," he said

Wilson, now living in York, had watched the girl strip out of her school uniform at his home in Romford, Essex, before she performed a sex act on him.

He admitted two counts of making extreme pornographic images and one count of sexual activity with a child.

Judge Peters told Wilson: "Allowing her to visit your home is something we have to clamp down on and in normal circumstances that would mean a significant term in prison."

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has said the language used by its prosecutor was "inappropriate".

A spokesman said: "The transgressor in this case was the defendant and he bears responsibility for his criminal acts."

More than 4,000 people have already signed a petition set up by a campaigner working on behalf of sex abuse victims calling for a review.

She wrote on the Change.org website: "I'm a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. I could have been that 13-year-old girl who the judge and prosecutor described as 'predatory'.

"I have seen first-hand how this kind of victim-blaming prevents women from coming forward and protects men who commit these crimes."

The NSPCC warned that the case was part of a wider pattern about how child sex abuse cases are treated in the courts.

Alan Wardle, head of corporate affairs, said: "It was quite clear in the case the predator was the man who was in the dock, not a 13-year-old child, and it is quite clear that a 13-year-old child cannot be complicit in her own abuse.

"Making sure that judges and barristers in all these cases are properly trained and understand the nature of child sexual abuse and how children are groomed in these sort of cases is important."

A spokesman for Barnardo's added: "It is plain wrong to imply in any way that the experiences of sexually exploited children are something they bring on themselves."

Victim Support's chief executive Javed Khan said: "Victims of sexual abuse should be praised for their bravery in coming forward, not censured and have their credibility called into question - least of all by the prosecution.

"It is traumatic enough for anyone who is brought to court to face their abuser, but particularly so when this is a young vulnerable person. It is completely unacceptable for victims to be blamed in any way for the abuse they have suffered."

Caroline Criado-Perez, who received rape threats following her calls for Jane Austen to be the face on the £10 bank note, called the judge's decision "completely appalling".

She told Sky News: "It's really worrying that we're in the 21st century and we're still suggesting victims can be complicit in their abuse which is basically what calling a 13-year-old child a sexually predator is.

"I don't think you can ever call a child a sexual predator because they are a child. They are below the age of consent. We have laws specifically because of this kind of thing so that you can't say a child is responsible for her abuse.

"This adds to the horror that has happened to her. She has been abused and now we are blaming her for it. It's just unconscionable."

The Attorney General said a decision on whether the case is referred to the Court of Appeal will be made within 28 days.

[Marc]

Awkward..

[Niamh.]

wow, that's pretty shocking and it happened in England too, I was really surprised by that, I was expecting it to be a country that's more behind the times when it comes to womens rights. That judge needs sacking

[Z]

Call me cynical, but why are all these people so convinced that the judge is in the wrong here? He was in charge of the full facts, none of us were. If it was his judgment that the girl was sexually mature and was not in fact 'abused' in the traditional sense of the word then surely that ought to count for something? I was still a kid when I was 13 but my best friend hit puberty when he was 11 and he was definitely aware of it. Not every 13 year old is still a child, is my point, and while I think it's wrong that a 40-something year old man was taking advantage of her, some of the comments made in that article imply that the judge was being sexist or something. Do we even know if the girl herself came forward or if she was 'found out' by an adult (presumably a parent) and it was taken forward thusly?

A 15 year old girl I know was having regular sex with her 19 year old boyfriend, her parents found out and they took him to court and he was put on the register. Absolutely no one who knew her would have said she was being taken advantage of - they were both consenting and at the time were in a loving relationship. The law is there for a reason obviously but I think it's important that judges take into account the people involved in a case and don't just say "the law says you have to be this age so that is my judgment."

Obviously the judge could be guilty of the things people are accusing him of, but I'm not convinced that this is as outrageous as the press are spinning it to be.

[Jesus.]

Statutory rape is statutory rape. Anyone having sex with a girl under 16 is legally an "abuser". Even a 15 yr old boy having sex with a 15yr old girl is a sex offender.

As an adult, you have to be expected to reject the advances of a child.

[Niamh.]

Really Greg? I have a 13 year old daughter and I don't care what the circumstances were, a 41 year old man having sex with a 13 year old child is always wrong. And a judge putting any type of blame on the child is 100% wrong.

[Ammi]

..I'm sure a 13yr old can be aware of their sexuality but in a very immature way and I wouldn't think they would be aware of potential health issues of being sexually active at that age either, I really don't care if she stripped naked and flung herself upon him, she wasn't slightly underage, she was 3 years underage and this wasn't a boyfriend who wasn't much older and maybe equally emotionally immature, it was a 41yr old man who was very responsible in his actions...

[Z]

I'm not doubting that a crime was committed but I'm a bit sceptical of the people calling the judge out on 'blaming' the girl. He presided over the case, he clearly felt that the victim must have at least been a willing participant to have said such a thing. That doesn't absolve the man of any guilt; he still committed a crime, but surely there's a difference between someone who takes a 13 year old girl to their home and abuses her against her will and someone who takes a 13 year old girl home for her to perform a strip tease and perform a sex act on him? Those sound like two completely different scenarios to me and that's presumably why it received a different type of sentencing. If she's acting older than her age, as is mentioned, then it's different to an immature 13 year old girl.

[Ammi]

..I think it was the prosecutor who accused of being a 'sex predator' and the judge accepted it but it isn't really that different at all because to me that's a bit like saying, if she maybe had been watching a movie that wasn't appropriate or something and decided she would 'act like a grown up' and strip etc...so that would be ok for the 41yr old to participate..?..

EDIT:..also, what message is this sending out to paedophiles...

[Jesus.]

I'm not doubting that a crime was committed but I'm a bit sceptical of the people calling the judge out on 'blaming' the girl. He presided over the case, he clearly felt that the victim must have at least been a willing participant to have said such a thing. That doesn't absolve the man of any guilt; he still committed a crime, but surely there's a difference between someone who takes a 13 year old girl to their home and abuses her against her will and someone who takes a 13 year old girl home for her to perform a strip tease and perform a sex act on him? Those sound like two completely different scenarios to me and that's presumably why it received a different type of sentencing. If she's acting older than her age, as is mentioned, then it's different to an immature 13 year old girl.

Why would a 41yr old take a 13yr old back to his house to begin with? It's not an appropriate relationship to be engaging in.

[Niamh.]

Why would a 41yr old take a 13yr old back to his house to begin with? It's not an appropriate relationship to be engaging in.

Exactly.

[Z]

..I think it was the prosecutor who accused of being a 'sex predator' and the judge accepted it but it isn't really that different at all because to me that's a bit like saying, if she maybe had been watching a movie that wasn't appropriate or something and decided she would 'act like a grown up' and strip etc...so that would be ok for the 41yr old to participate..?..

EDIT:..also, what message is this sending out to paedophiles...

It's definitely not okay for a grown man to have sex with a 13 year old. There is a difference between an unwilling victim and a willing person being victimised, though, in my opinion. People are projecting a personality onto this girl when absolutely no indication was given as to whether or not she herself felt abused - yes it has gone to court, but only because the girl told a friend about it. There's no indication to say that she told a friend because she was upset or she told a friend because she was bragging. People are saying that the poor girl is reliving her abuse etc... but what if the girl doesn't see it as abuse?

[Livia]

As far as I can see the judge didn't call the girl a "sexual predator", he said she was "predatory". He also said she looked older than she was and that she was "sexually experienced". So, where do her parents figure in all this? When I was 13 my parents knew where I was every single minute of the day.

You can't live in a society where young girls are sexualised at an early age and then expect them to not to be sexual. Some 13 year olds are extremely provocative and many are already sexually active. Now I am not for one minute saying that she deserved to be abused, not at all. But if you're expecting a 13 year old to be all ankle socks and Barbie dolls, go and stand outside a school disco when it's kicking out and have a look at the children dressed up like streetwalkers.

[Z]

As far as I can see the judge didn't call the girl a "sexual predator", he said she was "predatory". He also said she looked older than she was and that she was "sexually experienced". So, where do her parents figure in all this? When I was 13 my parents knew where I was every single minute of the day.

You can't live in a society where young girls are sexualised at an early age and then expect them to not to be sexual. Some 13 year olds are extremely provocative and many are already sexually active. Now I am not for one minute saying that she deserved to be abused, not at all. But if you're expecting a 13 year old to be all ankle socks and Barbie dolls, go and stand ourside a school disco when it's kicking out and have a look at the children dressed up like streetwalkers.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who can see the potential flip side to the coin... nobody is condoning what the man did - what he did was categorically wrong; but we know nothing about the 13 year old girl beyond what the barrister said and the judge accepted.

[Jesus.]

We don't need to know anything about the girl, though, surely? Isn't this all about the male. Not sure why it would matter whether she was dressed in stockings and suspenders and performed lap dances in the playground.

It's not her responsibility in this instance (as far as I can see) to be virginal. The responsibility rests solely with the adult to deal with the situation as an adult should.

[Z]

We don't need to know anything about the girl, though, surely? Isn't this all about the male. Not sure why it would matter whether she was dressed in stockings and suspenders and performed lap dances in the playground.

It's not her responsibility in this instance (as far as I can see) to be virginal. The responsibility rests solely with the adult to deal with the situation as an adult should.

Well I'd argue against that point because if the girl was acting as "predatory" as the barrister claimed she was then she's evidently not got a very healthy attitude towards sex. If she's a victim in the true sense of the word then this experience will seriously damage her life and therefore it's not "all about the male" - she is a victim and she needs support. On the other hand, if she's only a victim in the sense that she is underage and the law was violated, she still needs support because to be sexually active with a much older man when you're 13 years old is not a healthy attitude towards sex; so it absolutely matters whether she was dressed in stockings and suspenders and performed lap dances in the playground, every bit as much as it matters if she was innocently snatched from walking home and abused by an evil man. Either way, this is a child who has been violated.

[Tom4784]

Statutory Rape is Statutory Rape, regardless of the situation anyone under the age of 16 does not have the Right of Consent. She didn't force herself on him and he went through with it willingly knowing it was wrong.

[Z]

Statutory Rape is Statutory Rape, regardless of the situation anyone under the age of 16 does not have the Right of Consent. She didn't force herself on him and he went through with it willingly knowing it was wrong.

I don't think it says anywhere whether she did or didn't force herself on him... in fact, I think that's the implication with what the barrister is saying. Once again, I assume people will think I am excusing the man - I am not. It just seems that the media is projecting a victim personality onto the girl when there is no indication that that is the case; if anything the evidence points to the girl actively pursuing the encounter and the man taking advantage of that.

[Ammi]

It's definitely not okay for a grown man to have sex with a 13 year old. There is a difference between an unwilling victim and a willing person being victimised, though, in my opinion. People are projecting a personality onto this girl when absolutely no indication was given as to whether or not she herself felt abused - yes it has gone to court, but only because the girl told a friend about it. There's no indication to say that she told a friend because she was upset or she told a friend because she was bragging. People are saying that the poor girl is reliving her abuse etc... but what if the girl doesn't see it as abuse?

..yeah but I don't think a 13yr old is mature enough to make that decision about what she would be 'willing' to do sexually..she isn't old enough to determine abuse, no more than a 9/10 yr old..adults have to determine that for her because she is a child, only they didn't determine it..the judge ruled differently and that's neglect of that girl's wellbeing in my opinion and that's at best..can paedophiles now claim their victims were willing participants..does that make the crime any less...

[Z]

..yeah but I don't think a 13yr old is mature enough to make that decision about what she would be 'willing' to do sexually..she isn't old enough to determine abuse, no more than a 9/10 yr old..adults have to determine that for her because she is a child, only they didn't determine it..the judge ruled differently and that's neglect of that girl's wellbeing in my opinion and that's at best..can paedophiles now claim their victims were willing participants..does that make the crime any less...

I'm sure if she did willing choose to perform sex acts on this man, she will look back on this when she's older and realise how immature she was - but at the time I'd imagine she knew what she wanted to do (if that is what happened - there's still every possibility that the prosecutor was wrong and this girl was victimised against her will.) I don't think it's neglect of her well being if that was the situation at hand though; handing down a harsh jail sentence to a criminal when his victim did not feel like she was a victim could just as easily let girls think they can get away with anything, in the same way you get girls who blackmail boys into having sex with them because if they don't, they'll claim that the boy raped them...

It works both ways - this was clearly an exceptional circumstance in any event, I've never heard of a case like this before so I doubt this will suddenly become a defense for paedophiles everywhere.

[Ammi]

Well I'd argue against that point because if the girl was acting as "predatory" as the barrister claimed she was then she's evidently not got a very healthy attitude towards sex. If she's a victim in the true sense of the word then this experience will seriously damage her life and therefore it's not "all about the male" - she is a victim and she needs support. On the other hand, if she's only a victim in the sense that she is underage and the law was violated, she still needs support because to be sexually active with a much older man when you're 13 years old is not a healthy attitude towards sex; so it absolutely matters whether she was dressed in stockings and suspenders and performed lap dances in the playground, every bit as much as it matters if she was innocently snatched from walking home and abused by an evil man. Either way, this is a child who has been violated.

..for me that's all that's relevant Zee because otherwise who is to decide what 'provocative' is..that seems like quite dangerous territory, what different people would deem to be 'provocative' ..maybe a 5/6yr old in a beauty pageant who is dressed and dancing 'provocatively' in her act...it's absolutely the parent's responsibility to educate and protect a child but in this case that didn't happen, so then it's for the law to intervene..which they didn't either..she was totally let down...

[Livia]

I am not making excuses for the man involved. He should have been jailed, without a doubt. However... you cannot wave an uncorked bottle in front of an alcoholic and then be outraged when they take a drink.

We all have to take some responsibility for our actions, and in the case of the girl involved who was under the age of majority, her parents (or guardians) must take some responsibility. She was not drugged and dragged back to this man's house, she went willingly. It should stand as a warning for all young girls and for the parents of young girls, that there are consequences for being provocative. I'm not saying they deserve those consequences, but they will happen. She was called "predatory" because she acted that way. You can't shoot the messenger for pointing it out.

[Ammi]

I'm sure if she did willing choose to perform sex acts on this man, she will look back on this when she's older and realise how immature she was - but at the time I'd imagine she knew what she wanted to do (if that is what happened - there's still every possibility that the prosecutor was wrong and this girl was victimised against her will.) I don't think it's neglect of her well being if that was the situation at hand though; handing down a harsh jail sentence to a criminal when his victim did not feel like she was a victim could just as easily let girls think they can get away with anything, in the same way you get girls who blackmail boys into having sex with them because if they don't, they'll claim that the boy raped them...

It works both ways - this was clearly an exceptional circumstance in any event, I've never heard of a case like this before so I doubt this will suddenly become a defense for paedophiles everywhere.


..the accused was a paedophile and took a 13yr old girl in school uniform back to his house..I'm not sure how a school uniform could give anyone the impression she could be older or what she did was in anyway responsible for his actions

'He admitted two counts of making extreme pornographic images and one count of sexual activity with a child.

Judge Peters told Wilson: "Allowing her to visit your home is something we have to clamp down on and in normal circumstances that would mean a significant term in prison'

[Z]

..the accused was a paedophile and took a 13yr old girl in school uniform back to his house..I'm not sure how a school uniform could give anyone the impression she could be older or what she did was in anyway responsible for his actions

'He admitted two counts of making extreme pornographic images and one count of sexual activity with a child.

Judge Peters told Wilson: "Allowing her to visit your home is something we have to clamp down on and in normal circumstances that would mean a significant term in prison'

She could be anywhere up to 18 years old if she was in a school uniform; the barrister said she looked and acted older - evidently this man is a paedophile owing to material he owned and he was probably well aware of the fact she wasn't of age; but you can't give him 100% responsibility over what happened if she willingly went back to his house. That's unrealistic.

[Niamh.]

She could be anywhere up to 18 years old if she was in a school uniform; the barrister said she looked and acted older - evidently this man is a paedophile owing to material he owned and he was probably well aware of the fact she wasn't of age; but you can't give him 100% responsibility over what happened if she willingly went back to his house. That's unrealistic.

Yes you can.

[Z]

Yes you can.

No you can't. If he dragged her there and raped her, 100% blame would be at his feet, or if he was a trusted relative who abused a position of trust then he'd be fully to blame too, but that is not the situation so that cannot be how you proportion blame. From what we know, he took advantage of an under age girl who willingly went home with him. That's not to say she deserved to be abused, nobody does, but if she consented and he took advantage then that simply isn't the same thing as him abusing her.

[Livia]

So does anyone think that the parents of this 13 year old bear any responsibility for her promiscuousness (whether that's perceived or actual - the judge said she was sexually experienced) and for allowing herself to be taken back to a man's house for sex?

[Jesus.]

I'm 27, and there is no way in hell I would have a 13yr old girl back to my flat alone, unless she was a relative.

There is no need to put yourself in that position to begin with. Either he asked her back to his house, which is seriously dodgy, or she invited herself, and he said it was ok, which is seriously dodgy.

She didn't break in. Why put yourself in a position where an accusation can be made, never mind a sex act performed?

[Z]

So does anyone think that the parents of this 13 year old bear any responsibility for her promiscuousness (whether that's perceived or actual - the judge said she was sexually experienced) and for allowing herself to be taken back to a man's house for sex?

Yes. Might sound harsh but why is their 13 year old daughter in a position to meet a much older man and go back to his house? And be sexually experienced by the age of 13? Either there's some serious lack of parenting going on, or they're not being strict enough with her.

[Z]

I'm 27, and there is no way in hell I would have a 13yr old girl back to my flat alone, unless she was a relative.

There is no need to put yourself in that position to begin with. Either he asked her back to his house, which is seriously dodgy, or she invited herself, and he said it was ok, which is seriously dodgy.

She didn't break in. Why put yourself in a position where an accusation can be made, never mind a sex act performed?

Well he was in posession of paedophilic material anyway, going by that article, so it's pretty clear why he put himself in that position. It's obvious this wasn't an accident; but what's not clear is whether he invited her back and took advantage of her innocence or whether she invited herself back and forced the situation, which is what is being implied by the barrister's accusations.

[Tom4784]

No you can't. If he dragged her there and raped her, 100% blame would be at his feet, or if he was a trusted relative who abused a position of trust then he'd be fully to blame too, but that is not the situation so that cannot be how you proportion blame. From what we know, he took advantage of an under age girl who willingly went home with him. That's not to say she deserved to be abused, nobody does, but if she consented and he took advantage then that simply isn't the same thing as him abusing her.

She didn't consent to it though, 13 year olds don't have the Right of Consent period and this man should have known that. Placing the blame on the girl is stupid since the man should have known better, it was his responsibility to rebuke her advances.

[Niamh.]

Yes. Might sound harsh but why is their 13 year old daughter in a position to meet a much older man and go back to his house? And be sexually experienced by the age of 13? Either there's some serious lack of parenting going on, or they're not being strict enough with her.

Absolutely her parents need to be looked into but for a 41 year old man to bring a 13 year girl back to his house and have sex with her, then out of those two in that situation he is 100% in the wrong.

[Nedusa]

As far as I can see the judge didn't call the girl a "sexual predator", he said she was "predatory". He also said she looked older than she was and that she was "sexually experienced". So, where do her parents figure in all this? When I was 13 my parents knew where I was every single minute of the day.

You can't live in a society where young girls are sexualised at an early age and then expect them to not to be sexual. Some 13 year olds are extremely provocative and many are already sexually active. Now I am not for one minute saying that she deserved to be abused, not at all. But if you're expecting a 13 year old to be all ankle socks and Barbie dolls, go and stand outside a school disco when it's kicking out and have a look at the children dressed up like streetwalkers.

Good Post.........I agree as a Society we cannot complain too much when young teenage children become sexually active to the point of being "predatory" when they are bombarded by psuedo sexual imagery from all forms of advertising from a very early age. Coupled with the almost criminal ease with which hardcore pornography is assessable is it any wonder we have so many young teenagers with a casual attitude to sex with many different partners and in this case age groups.

However, having said all that the man in question has no right thinking he was a victim in this case. He invited this young schoolgirl into his home and probably encouraged her to perform on him. He was clearly in the wrong and as an earlier poster has said........sex with a minor is still classed as statutory rape and he should have received a jail sentence for his actions.

And to hear the girl classed as predatory by the Judge is unacceptable as the man was over 3 times her age and should have known better.

What sort of message does this case send out to other would be Peadophiles ??

[Z]

She didn't consent to it though, 13 year olds don't have the Right of Consent period and this man should have known that. Placing the blame on the girl is stupid since the man should have known better, it was his responsibility to rebuke her advances.

But this man had paedophilic material in his possession. This is not a regular man, this is a man with an attraction to underage children. It was his responsibility, of course, and nobody is blaming the girl for his attraction to underagers - but if she encouraged him to have sex with her then that is a different set of circumstances to a more black and white scenario of a man forcibly having sex with an underage girl against her will. Okay, she didn't legally consent to it because she's not legally allowed to, but that doesn't mean she didn't say "yes I want you to do this" to him, which is what is being suggested by the barrister.

Absolutely her parents need to be looked into but for a 41 year old man to bring a 13 year girl back to his house and have sex with her, then out of those two in that situation he is 100% in the wrong.

How can he be 100% to blame if the girl willingly came back with him, stripped off and performed a sex act on him? That reads completely differently to "41 year old man takes 13 year old girl back to his house and has sex with her against her will." I don't understand why nobody else is seeing this distinction? Nobody is excusing the criminality of what the man did - the focus is purely on whether the girl was an unwilling victim or a willing participant: the quote from the barrister implies the latter.

[Tom4784]

It doesn't matter whether or not she was willing, a crime is a crime.

[Niamh.]

But this man had paedophilic material in his possession. This is not a regular man, this is a man with an attraction to underage children. It was his responsibility, of course, and nobody is blaming the girl for his attraction to underagers - but if she encouraged him to have sex with her then that is a different set of circumstances to a more black and white scenario of a man forcibly having sex with an underage girl against her will. Okay, she didn't legally consent to it because she's not legally allowed to, but that doesn't mean she didn't say "yes I want you to do this" to him, which is what is being suggested by the barrister.



How can he be 100% to blame if the girl willingly came back with him, stripped off and performed a sex act on him? That reads completely differently to "41 year old man takes 13 year old girl back to his house and has sex with her against her will." I don't understand why nobody else is seeing this distinction? Nobody is excusing the criminality of what the man did - the focus is purely on whether the girl was an unwilling victim or a willing participant: the quote from the barrister implies the latter.

He is 100% to blame because having sex with a minor/or sexual acts with a minor is illegal............ So unless that child somehow managed to over power him, tie him down and perform sexual acts on him against his will then yes he is the one who is 100% in the wrong and to blame.

[Z]

It doesn't matter whether or not she was willing, a crime is a crime.

Yeah but is a thief as bad as a murderer? Is a tax evader as bad as a rapist? There are levels of criminality and I believe this case falls under that category. This is not as clear cut as other cases concerning paedophilia and sex under the age of consent; if the barrister's comments are justifiable, that is.

[Jesus.]

13yr olds have sex, and it isn't always anything to do with parents or upbringing. 13yr oods wanting to have sex with 41yr olds, suggests that maybe some kind of incidents in her past may have occurred, but it's all amateur psychology until we know.

[Nedusa]

Fortunately the law is very clear on this, it doesn't matter if she gave 100% consent, the 41 year old man cannot engage in any form of sexual activity with this girl. If he does then he is commiting an act of statutory rape.....clear and simple. The young girl is under the age of sexual consent therefore cannot legally engage in any form of sexual activity with this man.

It matters not how predatory she is, he has the responsibility to protect her from herself if needs be. He should consider himself very lucky not to have gone to jail for his actions (or inactions).

[Z]

I think his sentence is ridiculously lenient regardless of the circumstances, but if, as I have been arguing could be the case, she was the one pursuing the encounter, then it should rightfully be more lenient than a standard sentence for statutory rape, in my opinion.

[Niamh.]

I think his sentence is ridiculously lenient regardless of the circumstances, but if, as I have been arguing could be the case, she was the one pursuing the encounter, then it should rightfully be more lenient than a standard sentence for statutory rape, in my opinion.

Why should it? Statutory rape means the person (consenting or not) is below the age where her consent means anything. So whether or not she persued this should be irrelevant

[Z]

Why should it? Statutory rape means the person (consenting or not) is below the age where her consent means anything. So whether or not she persued this should be irrelevant

Because I think there's a difference between aggressively forcing a situation and consenting to an illegal situation - to others that might not be important and I respect that but to me, there is a difference and I can't ignore that.

[Ammi]

She could be anywhere up to 18 years old if she was in a school uniform; the barrister said she looked and acted older - evidently this man is a paedophile owing to material he owned and he was probably well aware of the fact she wasn't of age; but you can't give him 100% responsibility over what happened if she willingly went back to his house. That's unrealistic.

..but he can't have verified her age because she was 13yrs old and if he was in anyway not sure of that, then he shouldn't have taken her back to his house, for me a 41yr old shouldn't be taking any 'unknown' girl in a school uniform back to his house no matter how old she looks to him or how 'grown up' she acts because she wasn't a grown up Zee, she was a child...if a child gets into the car of a stranger, apparently willingly..is that any of that child's fault..?...why is it not 100% his responsibility when she was a child..

Yeah but is a thief as bad as a murderer? Is a tax evader as bad as a rapist? There are levels of criminality and I believe this case falls under that category. This is not as clear cut as other cases concerning paedophilia and sex under the age of consent; if the barrister's comments are justifiable, that is.



the analogies aren't really right though because they don't compare with each other like for like, which this does...she's no less violated or abused because she might not have struggled or said no, it was up to him to not allow it to happen...

[Niamh.]

Because I think there's a difference between aggressively forcing a situation and consenting to an illegal situation - to others that might not be important and I respect that but to me, there is a difference and I can't ignore that.

But the whole reason that there is an age of consent is because 13 year olds are not legally allowed to make that decision for themselves, it's there to protect them from themselves as well as from adults who might take advantage of them.

[Z]

But the whole reason that there is an age of consent is because 13 year olds are not legally allowed to make that decision for themselves, it's there to protect them from themselves as well as from adults who might take advantage of them.

Yeah... I think Livia's point is a very good one... where is the criticism of her parents or guardians in all of this? A crime was committed and a young girl has either had her life ruined, or it was already in some form of disrepair because she was seeking out a sexual encounter with an older man.

[Livia]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the girl was able to consent, nor that the man wasn't 100% in the wrong. The outcry in the press as far as I can see seems to centre around the comments that the girl was sexually experienced and predatory. She is thirteen years old.

While the man is undoubtedly 100% to blame and in my opinion should have been jailed, the fact that there are 13 year old girls in this country who are both sexually active and sexually provocative, and that some people are not deeply concerned by that, is a damning indictment on the whole of our society.

[Kizzy]

''you cannot wave an uncorked bottle in front of an alcoholic and then be outraged when they take a drink''.

This is probably the single most disgusting thing I have ever read on this forum and makes a mockery women everywhere who protest against the premise that the way women dress and act in some way justifies the abuse they suffer...
What makes it all the more disgusting is that it was said in the defence of a man who assaulted a child and not a woman.
There is no grey area in law it is black and white there should be no 'extenuating circumstances' that excused this man from his actions, sex with a 13yr old is illegal consensual or not for a reason.

http://slutmeansspeakup.org.uk/

''The protest movement was sparked by a Canadian policeman who advised students to "avoid dressing like sluts" to avoid being victimised.

Since then, thousands of people worldwide have taken to the streets to highlight a culture in which they say the victim, rather than the abuser, is blamed''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13739876

[Niamh.]

Yeah... I think Livia's point is a very good one... where is the criticism of her parents or guardians in all of this? A crime was committed and a young girl has either had her life ruined, or it was already in some form of disrepair because she was seeking out a sexual encounter with an older man.

Oh yeah, I do agree that her parents need to be looked at and questioned for sure. But I'm talking just about the situation between the man and the child and as far as I'm concerned in that situation between those two, blame lays solely at his feet

[Ammi]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the girl was able to consent, nor that the man wasn't 100% in the wrong. The outcry in the press as far as I can see seems to centre around the comments that the girl was sexually experienced and predatory. She is thirteen years old.

While the man is undoubtedly 100% to blame and in my opinion should have been jailed, the fact that there are 13 year old girls in this country who are both sexually active and sexually provocative, and that some people are not deeply concerned by that, is a damning indictment on the whole of our society.

..yeah, I totally agree, I feel that she was let down badly before she was in that man's house and then sadly let down further by the courts...

[arista]

wow, that's pretty shocking and it happened in England too, I was really surprised by that, I was expecting it to be a country that's more behind the times when it comes to womens rights. That judge needs sacking


And a Lady Judge to take his place

[Livia]

And a Lady Judge to take his place


Don't imagine for a minute that female judges make fewer dubious decisions than male judges. In my humble opinion they're mostly out of touch with reality.

[Jesus.]

And a Lady Judge to take his place


I think they're still refereed to as judges, and not "lady judges".

[AnnieK]

The fault does lie entirely at the feet of the man, in my opinion. The girl did not commit an illegal act, he did. Unfortunately, this only highlights what a lot of women who bring these kind of cases to court are faced with. I attended court with a family member who had been raped (date rape) and she was faced with similar comments from the prosecutor and witnesses about her sexual history and her life was effectively ruined by bringing this case to court (in her mind) and now has no faith in the justice system and would never advise anyone to make a complaint as the mistakes made and slurs implied were devastating, not taking into account the state she was in on the night of the assault, the physical evidence, bruising, bleeding etc all the prosecution were interested in was that she was a single girl with a past...anyway, my point in this is that this happens regularly in cases such as these where the victim bears (wrongly) the blame for the assaults and in my opinion the justice system needs reviewing on this. This is only in the press as this victim is an underage girl but it is a pitfall that faces a lot of women when they are brave enough to face their abuser and speak out in a court.

[Marc]

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the girl was able to consent, nor that the man wasn't 100% in the wrong. The outcry in the press as far as I can see seems to centre around the comments that the girl was sexually experienced and predatory. She is thirteen years old.

While the man is undoubtedly 100% to blame and in my opinion should have been jailed, the fact that there are 13 year old girls in this country who are both sexually active and sexually provocative, and that some people are not deeply concerned by that, is a damning indictment on the whole of our society.

Very good point

[Livia]

Good Post.........I agree as a Society we cannot complain too much when young teenage children become sexually active to the point of being "predatory" when they are bombarded by psuedo sexual imagery from all forms of advertising from a very early age. Coupled with the almost criminal ease with which hardcore pornography is assessable is it any wonder we have so many young teenagers with a casual attitude to sex with many different partners and in this case age groups.

However, having said all that the man in question has no right thinking he was a victim in this case. He invited this young schoolgirl into his home and probably encouraged her to perform on him. He was clearly in the wrong and as an earlier poster has said........sex with a minor is still classed as statutory rape and he should have received a jail sentence for his actions.

And to hear the girl classed as predatory by the Judge is unacceptable as the man was over 3 times her age and should have known better.

What sort of message does this case send out to other would be Peadophiles ??


I completely agree that the man in question is 100% in the wrong, and like I've said numerous times before, in my opinion he should have been jailed.

Thing is though, some 13 year olds ARE predatory and provocative, but sadly, without being skilled in making good decisions like a grown woman might. They look like women, they dress like women... but they're children. If a woman wants to dress provocatively, she has the mental capacity to deal with unwanted attention on a much higher level than a child would in the same situation. The sexualisation of children is an issue in our society and one that needs sorting.

[Marc]

''you cannot wave an uncorked bottle in front of an alcoholic and then be outraged when they take a drink''.

This is probably the single most disgusting thing I have ever read on this forum and makes a mockery women everywhere who protest against the premise that the way women dress and act in some way justifies the abuse they suffer...
What makes it all the more disgusting is that it was said in the defence of a man who assaulted a child and not a woman.
There is no grey area in law it is black and white there should be no 'extenuating circumstances' that excused this man from his actions, sex with a 13yr old is illegal consensual or not for a reason.

http://slutmeansspeakup.org.uk/

''The protest movement was sparked by a Canadian policeman who advised students to "avoid dressing like sluts" to avoid being victimised.

Since then, thousands of people worldwide have taken to the streets to highlight a culture in which they say the victim, rather than the abuser, is blamed''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13739876

I think this is a ridiculously exaggerated response and pretty rude

[Kizzy]

I think this is a ridiculously exaggerated response and pretty rude

It is my opinion marc...
This is not the subject to be throwing around your glib responses either.

[Marc]

It is my opinion marc...
This is not the subject to be throwing around you glib responses either.

Excuse me?

And how exactly would you describe your response to Livia then?

[Kizzy]

Excuse me?

And how exactly would you describe your response to Livia then?

I'm not being drawn out on this, if you didn't like my tone that is your issue but I expressed how I felt and my response reflects that.

[Marc]

I'm not being drawn out on this, if you didn't like my tone that is your issue but I expressed how I felt and my response reflects that.

I don't feel I need to draw you out at all.

[Kizzy]

I don't feel I need to draw you out at all.

Good for you, so carry on expressing your opinion and don't question mine.

[arista]

I think they're still refereed to as judges, and not "lady judges".



Sure
I am just saying a Lady taking his job would be better

[Ammi]

..what I do find slightly ironic as well is that this ruling has been made and this leniency been inappropriately shown for such a crime when the government are discussing bans on the internet to help prevent paedophilia and protect young people, I know this isn't an internet case but I find that very ironic and not sending the signal of what apparently is hoped to be achieved, which is to protect the child...

[Z]

Sure
I am just saying a Lady taking his job would be better

Are we now accusing the judge of being sexist? I'm fairly confident that his decision had nothing to do with his gender, nor does his gender have anything to do with his abilities.

[Marc]

Good for you, so carry on expressing your opinion and don't question mine.

HA! You questioned Livia's though, why can you question hers and I'm not allowed to question yours? :laugh: Ridiculous

[arista]

Are we now accusing the judge of being sexist? I'm fairly confident that his decision had nothing to do with his gender, nor does his gender have anything to do with his abilities.



No he is a Dirty Old Judge,
his gender does come into this.

[Z]

Incredible.

[arista]

Incredible.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/07/article-2385766-1B28FD54000005DC-669_306x456.jpg
Judge Nigel Peters has been criticised after
describing a sex abuse victim as 'predatory'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2385766/Attorney-General-set-examine-case-paedophile-spared-jail-prosecutor-said-13-year-old-victim-predatory.html#ixzz2bHumM1KE

[Kizzy]

HA! You questioned Livia's though, why can you question hers and I'm not allowed to question yours? :laugh: Ridiculous

Marc. what are you trying to achieve here?
You suggested my response was exaggerated; It wasn't.
How would I describe my response? Apt.
Are we done now?

[Marc]

Marc. what are you trying to achieve here?
You suggested my response was exaggerated; It wasn't.
How would I describe my response? Apt.
Are we done now?

If that's what you want to believe.

[Kizzy]

If that's what you want to believe.

It's what I know to be the truth marc.

[CaudleHalbard]

I wouldn't wish to comment on this case because we, the public, only ever get told a fraction of the story.

I would merely observe that in a country like, for example, Spain this case would never even have come to court. Why? Because the age of consent is 13 in Spain. Funny old world isn't it?

[Niamh.]

I wouldn't wish to comment on this case because we, the public, only ever get told a fraction of the story.

I would merely observe that in a country like, for example, Spain this case would never even have come to court. Why? Because the age of consent is 13 in Spain. Funny old world isn't it?

http://now.msn.com/spain-raises-age-of-consent-marriage-age

[Z]

http://now.msn.com/spain-raises-age-of-consent-marriage-age

Well what do you know! Good on Spain for finally changing it!

[Niamh.]

Well what do you know! Good on Spain for finally changing it!

Yeah, jeez about time too

[Z]

Marriage at 14 especially is completely obscene, I don't know if it's frowned upon in Spain but what kind of family would be comfortable with their 14 year old getting married?

[Niamh.]

Marriage at 14 especially is completely obscene, I don't know if it's frowned upon in Spain but what kind of family would be comfortable with their 14 year old getting married?

I know, it's probably one of those really old laws that they were too lazy to get around to changing

[GiRTh]

I completely agree that the man in question is 100% in the wrong, and like I've said numerous times before, in my opinion he should have been jailed.

Thing is though, some 13 year olds ARE predatory and provocative, but sadly, without being skilled in making good decisions like a grown woman might. They look like women, they dress like women... but they're children. If a woman wants to dress provocatively, she has the mental capacity to deal with unwanted attention on a much higher level than a child would in the same situation. The sexualisation of children is an issue in our society and one that needs sorting.I think this is the most important point. A 13 yr old can look and act like a grown woman but a 13yr old is definitely not a fully grown woman. IMO a 16 yr old isnt a grown woman either. The man took advantage of her no matter what she said or did or how she was dressed.

[CaudleHalbard]

Spain is only 'consulting' on the age of consent. It is still 13.

[Niamh.]

Spain is only 'consulting' on the age of consent. It is still 13.

I know that, I never said otherwise, but they obviously feel it's not right if they're planning on raising it

[CaudleHalbard]

I know that, I never said otherwise, but they obviously feel it's not right if they're planning on raising it

The point is all these ages of consent are artificial and vary from country to country. 14 seems pretty common. But worldwide it is as low as 12 and as high as 21. There is no consensus.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

[Kizzy]

The point is all these ages of consent are artificial and vary from country to country. 14 seems pretty common. But worldwide it is as low as 12 and as high as 21. There is no consensus.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

This isn't really the issue though is it?

[CaudleHalbard]

This isn't really the issue though is it?

Of course it is an issue if you are putting people in the slammer for something which is not a crime in several countries.

It is a bit like exceeding an equally artificial speed limit.

[Kizzy]

Of course it is an issue if you are putting people in the slammer for something which is not a crime in several countries.

It is a bit like exceeding an equally artificial speed limit.

In some countries you can be whipped, beaten and put to death for crimes, that is irrelevant here.
Stick to the laws we have in place in this country please.

[CaudleHalbard]

In some countries you can be whipped, beaten and put to death for crimes, that is irrelevant here.
Stick to the laws we have in place in this country please.

We are talking about arbitrary figures which are not agreed even within the EU, of which the UK is part.

I was merely pointing out the arbitrariness. That's all.

[Kizzy]

All laws within the EU can be considered 'arbitrary' then by that fuzzy logic.
The fact remains that 16 is the law in this country and as such a crime was committed.

[Nedusa]

All laws within the EU can be considered 'arbitrary' then by that fuzzy logic.
The fact remains that 16 is the law in this country and as such a crime was committed.

I agree, talking about Spain and their laws is a different arguement for a different day. Trying to broaden this debate by bringing up other countries laws doesn't change the facts in this case. He bears total responsibility for what happened regardless of the girls actions. He committed a criminal offence knowingly and should be punished accordingly.

Using the girls so called willingness to engage in the act as mitigation is indefensible and should not have been allowed in open court as it is irrelevant to his actions. He should have been given a prison sentence in accordance with normal sentencing guidelines for offences such as these........!!!

[Ammi]

A barrister who described a 13-year-old victim of sex abuse as "predatory" in court has been suspended from sexual offence cases pending a review.

Robert Colover has been criticised for his remarks, in which he also described the girl as "sexually experienced".

The Crown Prosecution Service said he would not be instructed in sex cases while it considered his situation.

Neil Wilson, 41, admitted abusing the girl at his home in Romford, London, and was given a suspended jail term.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) described Mr Colover's language as "inappropriate".

The CPS said the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, would carry out a review and decide what action to take.

A CPS spokesman said: "We are now considering the involvement of this barrister in sexual offence prosecutions and have advised his chambers that we will not instruct him in any ongoing or future cases involving sexual offences in the meantime."

The CPS added: "The word predatory in this context should not have been used and is of real concern to the CPS.

"It is not consistent with the work that we have undertaken alongside the judiciary and others in the past year to improve attitudes towards victims of abuse.

"We expect all of our prosecutors, including self-employed barristers who act on our behalf, to follow our guidance in these very difficult cases."

The Metropolitan Police said the word "predatory" did not did not appear in any police material concerning the victim.

A Met spokesman said: "The Metropolitan Police Service is aware of reports in the media surrounding terminology used by the prosecution barrister in the case of Neil Wilson.

"This is not terminology the Met Police Service would use to describe a victim in such a case, and was not used by the officer who provided testimony in this case."

Prime Minister David Cameron said he supported the position of the CPS.

He said: "I think the CPS are absolutely right to say that what one of their lawyers said was not appropriate. It isn't appropriate. We need a criminal justice system that stands up properly for victims.

"The victims should always be at the centre of our thinking and I'm pleased the CPS have made that statement and I'm also pleased that the attorney general has said that he is personally going to look into this case."


Labour has written to the Bar Standards Board to ask it to investigate whether Mr Colover had breached its code of conduct.

Shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry said: "It is appalling that, after the scandals of Jimmy Savile and Rochdale, these awful Lolita prejudices are still being served up in court, and by the prosecution of all people."

BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said a prosecutor must draw to a court's attention any matter that assists the defendant - and it is not at all unusual.

But, our correspondent added, the prosecutor needed to scrutinise the potentially mitigating material carefully and the language in which it is expressed.

The police were alerted to the actions of Wilson, who now lives in York, after his victim told a friend. Images of child sex abuse were also found on Wilson's computer.

Wilson later admitted two counts of making extreme pornographic images and one count of sexual activity with a child.

Mr Colover, who was employed by the CPS at Wilson's sentencing hearing at London's Snaresbrook Crown Court on Monday, said: "The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced."

The judge, Nigel Peters, said that when deciding Wilson's punishment he had taken into account the prosecution's comments that the girl looked and behaved older than she was.

Wilson's eight-month jail term was suspended for two years. The Attorney General's Office said the sentence had been drawn to its attention as "possibly unduly lenient".

Details of the case came as the head of the judiciary in England and Wales said a select pool of judges with specialist training would be created to handle complex child abuse cases, amid concerns at the way some child witnesses were treated in court by lawyers.

Javed Khan, chief executive of independent charity Victim Support, said: "Victims of sexual abuse should be praised for their bravery in coming forward not censured and have their credibility called into question, least of all by the prosecution."

However, Carl Gardner, a former government legal adviser, warned that most people commenting on the case did not know the full facts.

Paul Mendelle, a criminal barrister and former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said the behaviour of the victim is not usually a mitigating factor.

An online petition on Change.org calling for the CPS to investigate the language used by Mr Colover has been signed by 30,000 people

[Ninastar]

i think greg and livia put my thoughts across very well. i think both the parents and the man are to blame.

[Z]

The third last and second last sentences of that article Ammi posted just above say it all for me really; that the barrister's words were in context and I assume he would not use those words lightly.

[Kizzy]

Government legal adviser = spin doctor.
Of course they will be wanting damage limitation from this and as little fallout as is possible.
Is there a link to this article?

[Livia]

The third last and second last sentences of that article Ammi posted just above say it all for me really; that the barrister's words were in context and I assume he would not use those words lightly.

I'm shocked everyone got so bent out of shape because he referred to a sexually experienced 13 year old as predatory, instead of getting angry that a 13 year old actually is sexually experienced and predatory.

I think he should have added that her parents are inadequate and irresponsible.

[CaudleHalbard]

I'm shocked everyone got so bent out of shape because he referred to a sexually experienced 13 year old as predatory, instead of getting angry that a 13 year old actually is sexually experienced and predatory.

I think he should have added that her parents are inadequate and irresponsible.

Agree with this 100%.

[Z]

I'm shocked everyone got so bent out of shape because he referred to a sexually experienced 13 year old as predatory, instead of getting angry that a 13 year old actually is sexually experienced and predatory.

I think he should have added that her parents are inadequate and irresponsible.

Yeah definitely agree with all of that. You can argue that parents can't control who their kids want to be - but at the age of 13 you can still keep them in the house and not let them do whatever they want in their free time.

[Apple202]

Statutory rape is statutory rape. Anyone having sex with a girl under 16 is legally an "abuser". Even a 15 yr old boy having sex with a 15yr old girl is a sex offender.

As an adult, you have to be expected to reject the advances of a child.

If that were to happen both the boy and the girl would have committed statutory rape, statutory rape doesn't just count for girls :conf:

[CaudleHalbard]

Just to be clear, it is an offence to have sex with anyone under 16. Regardless of gender.

[Z]

Just to be clear, it is an offence to have sex with anyone under 16. Regardless of gender.

Which was a great way to explain my lack of a love life for the first 16 years of my life but the last 6 years have just been really awkward at family gatherings.

[Kizzy]

''Paul Mendelle, a criminal barrister and former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said the behaviour of the victim is not usually a mitigating factor.''

That is because especially in cases like this it should never even be suggested, and I can well understand why the CPS are getting 'bent out of shape'.

''In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said that Robert Colover, QC, the prosecutor in the case at Snaresbrook Crown Court should not have used the word “predatory” and confirmed that he would be investigated by Director of Public Prosecution Keir Starmer. The statement added that the use of the word is “of real concern to the CPS”. It said: “It is not consistent with the work that we have undertaken alongside the judiciary and others in the past year to improve attitudes towards victims of abuse. We expect all of our prosecutors, including self-employed barristers who act on our behalf, to follow our guidance in these very difficult cases.''

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/barrister-who-called-13yearold-sex-abuse-victim-predatory-is-barred-from-similar-cases-8750521.html

[DanaC]

Lets put this into a wider context though, Zee. It is a relatively recent thing that victims of rape or sexual abuse, and particularly children, have been considered entirely innocent in such instances.

Even now, it is far too common that the authorities look with suspicion on victims of this kind of crime. One of the girls systematically abused by that gang in Rochdale recently, having tried to report what was happening to the police, was dismissed as 'a prostitute'. Basically, having been turned by those men into a prositute for their own and others' use, that was then seen as reason to dismiss her, rather than additional reason to help her.

The girl was not responsible. Cannot have been responsible. And if she was sexually precocious, that just means her precociousness was abused and used against her by a man old enough to know better.

Might also be worth considering the fact that pedophiles often characterise even very young children as 'wanting it', or 'cockteasing' or 'knowing what they're doing'.

This description of a 13 year old girl as 'predatory' fits into a very old and very disturbing narrative around girl's sexuality and availability. And it resulted in a much shorter sentence being given to someone who was the real predator. It makes him out to be partially exonerated and shares the blame between them. It effectively recasts him as falling victim to a Lolita's charms.

It's dangerous and wrong.

[Z]

Lets put this into a wider context though, Zee. It is a relatively recent thing that victims of rape or sexual abuse, and particularly children, have been considered entirely innocent in such instances.

Even now, it is far too common that the authorities look with suspicion on victims of this kind of crime. One of the girls systematically abused by that gang in Rochdale recently, having tried to report what was happening to the police, was dismissed as 'a prostitute'. Basically, having been turned by those men into a prositute for their own and others' use, that was then seen as reason to dismiss her, rather than additional reason to help her.

The girl was not responsible. Cannot have been responsible. And if she was sexually precocious, that just means her precociousness was abused and used against her by a man old enough to know better.

Might also be worth considering the fact that pedophiles often characterise even very young children as 'wanting it', or 'cockteasing' or 'knowing what they're doing'.

This description of a 13 year old girl as 'predatory' fits into a very old and very disturbing narrative around girl's sexuality and availability. And it resulted in a much shorter sentence being given to someone who was the real predator. It makes him out to be partially exonerated and shares the blame between them. It effectively recasts him as falling victim to a Lolita's charms.

It's dangerous and wrong.

You've made some fantastic points and I don't disagree with any of them. However, I stand by my original view that the barrister must have had very good reasons to make such statements and for the judge to accept them, when as Kizzy posted above, the behaviour of the victim is not usually considered - all of that suggests to me that the victim is only a victim in the legal sense of the term. I'm not in possession of the full facts so I can only speculate, but as Livia said, we cannot box all 13 year olds into the same "a 13 year old is a child" mentality because people grow and develop at different rates; and when you have children being subjected to sex in all forms of media, it's not surprising that children are growing up faster than they used to, which perhaps explains the comments about her acting older than she was.

Once again, that is not to say that that excuses what the man did. What he did was wrong, categorically wrong. I just believe that there are different levels of criminality and that if the 13 year old girl was actively pursuing this encounter then it would be equally wrong to denounce the 41 year old man as a predatory paedophile in the same category as men who raped children.

[DanaC]

Actually, to be fair 'pedophile' is the wrong word anyway. She was pubescent not prepubescent.

But: in terms of mitigating his guilt, it would have been acceptable to say that the girl looked, acted and claimed to be older than 13. That woulld have mitigated his guilt without judging her. As it stands she was judged to be 'predatory'.

She was not on trial, he was. But she was still judged. That is wrong. It is far too common, sadly, that young women and girls, especially, are routinely held accountable for their victimhood.

We are assuming the prosecutor had good reason for using that word. But how do we know that? When it is, as I say, all too common for girls to be held accountable for the actions of men.

To say she is predatory is to paint the man as her victim. He was not some innocent, naive, sexually inexperienced young man. He was a middle aged man with a computer full of images of child pornography and bestiality. He also made pornographic images. I do not beleve that the prosecutor and judge used that word because of the evidence. I believe that two older men were willing to accept that a young girl bears more responsibility for sexual activity than another middle aged man.

We in our society treat women's sexuality as essentially seductive and men's sexuality as essentially reactive to that seduction. Time and again in rape trials, the fact that a woman was wearing revealing clothes is held up as evidence against her in mitigation of her rapist's guilt. The implication being that the man simply misread the signals and couldn't help himself. That he was reacting with understandable desire to an object of desire and seduction. Time and again, girls and women are assumed by the authorities to be lying about consent. despite the rarity of false rape claims and prevalence of rape, the conviction rates for that crime remain terribly low compared to other violent crime.

The reason the police set up specialist units was precisely because of this paradigm. And even then those specialist units have been caught advising, and even bullying female victims to withdraw their accusations. The reason the CPS now insists on specialist lawyers for cases of this nature involving children is because they require specialist knowledge of crimes of this nature. Too many cases were falling through the system because children were not believed , and because predatory sexual offenders specifically target very vulnerable children. Kids in childrens homes, for example, who having been abused are then disbelieved or treated as criminals themselves.

I think that this prosecutor was operating on an outdated model of child sexuality and female culpability. It would sit very comfortably in the 1980s or even 1990s, when high court judges would make statements about girls 'asking for it' because they wore a short skirt.

[DanaC]

Here's a little quote from the prosecutor's case just to demonstrate what I am talking about:

During the trial, Judge Peters had been told by prosecutor Robert Colover: “The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced.
“She appeared to look around 14 or 15 and had the mental age of a 14 or 15-year-old despite being younger than that.
“There was sexual activity but it was not of Mr Wilson's doing. You might say it was forced upon him despite being older and stronger than her.”

Really? Forced upon him? The sexual activity was not of his doing?

because men cannot help themselves once aroused is that it?

And she 'looked around 14 or 15'. Not 18 as has been quoted by some: so a grown man simply couldn't help himself when faced with a 'predatory' girl who looked 14 or 15.

[Z]

But nobody's arguing that he didn't commit a crime and nobody said she looked 18 - I said she could have been anywhere up to 18 years old if she was in a school uniform, I think that's the only comment along those lines that was made. What he did was wrong. That is not up for debate. The prosecutor's argument that it was "forced" upon him is of course a heap of nonsense, but the point he's making that she was the one pursuing the encounter is an important point in my opinion that differentiates this case from cases where men force girls into acts that they didn't want to commit.

[Nedusa]

Apparently the girl in question did not report the incident a friend of hers reported it to the police a few days later.

So the man could have denied it as lies or said the girl was trying to blackmail him for money or some other story. But as he has been convicted for this offence you have to wonder if he admitted it from the off even though it was only his word against hers... Not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt I would have thought ???

[Z]

Apparently the girl in question did not report the incident a friend of hers reported it to the police a few days later.

So the man could have denied it as lies or said the girl was trying to blackmail him for money or some other story. But as he has been convicted for this offence you have to wonder if he admitted it from the off even though it was only his word against hers... Not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt I would have thought ???

A lot depends on what she said to her friend and how she said it, I think. Was she upset and confided in a friend or was she bragging to a friend who thought it was wrong? Pretty much everything I think on this case hinges on the opinion of the girl - because this is a statutory rape it doesn't really matter what the girl herself thinks in the eyes of the law. She was underage and that is wrong. So whether or not she totally consented to it is irrelevant; except in this case, the court seems to have taken into account that she wanted the encounter and suggests that she was pursuing it aggressively (going by the prosecutor's comments and the judge accepting them) so that's led to the abuser getting a lenient sentence. It's very curious to me. If she was upset and told a friend about it and what the prosecutor is saying are lies, then this is a total travesty - but if she consented to it and was actually the one pursuing it then do we need to change the existing laws in some way?

[DanaC]

He didn't just get a lenient sentence, he got a suspended sentence: effectively no sentence at all.

Even if she wanted it: by the above statements he thought she was around 14 or 15. Therefore he knowingly committed a crime in allowing sexual activity to take place.

[Z]

He didn't just get a lenient sentence, he got a suspended sentence: effectively no sentence at all.

Yeah :/ I think that's ridiculous. He still committed a crime, he ought to be in jail.

[DanaC]

I honestly think this says a good deal more about the prosecutor and judge's view of girls than it does about the details of the individual case.

[Z]

Perhaps it does.. I'm working on the basis that they are both doing their jobs properly but there is of course the possibility that they're misogynists, either one or both of them.

[Nedusa]

But without his admittance that sexual activity took place , would there have been enough evidence to secure a conviction if eg it was his word against hers ??

[Niamh.]

Great posts Dana

[Livia]

He didn't just get a lenient sentence, he got a suspended sentence: effectively no sentence at all.

Even if she wanted it: by the above statements he thought she was around 14 or 15. Therefore he knowingly committed a crime in allowing sexual activity to take place.

He got a suspended sentence. It is lenient, but it is till a sentence. No sentence at all would have been if he had been given no sentence at all.

[Livia]

I honestly think this says a good deal more about the prosecutor and judge's view of girls than it does about the details of the individual case.

I think it says a lot about the judges and the prosecutors view of 13 year old girls who are sexually experienced and sexually predatory.

Although this girl was underage, although the man was totally in the wrong and should have been jailed, you cannot deny that the circumstances surrounding this case were mostly initiated by the girl. She didn't even report the case. Which begs the question, what did her parents think their child – because that’s what she is – was doing while she was willingly performing sex acts on a paedophile?

[Niamh.]

He got a suspended sentence. It is lenient, but it is till a sentence. No sentence at all would have been if he had been given no sentence at all.

I never got the suspended sentence thing though, he walked free from court, what good is a suspended sentence?

[Livia]

I never got the suspended sentence thing though, he walked free from court, what good is a suspended sentence?

A suspended sentence means that the sentence is hanging over his head. If he commits a crime while his suspended sentence is running, it will be added to any further sentence he's given.

[Niamh.]

A suspended sentence means that the sentence is hanging over his head. If he commits a crime while his suspended sentence is running, it will be added to any further sentence he's given.

Pah, that's a load of s**t tbh not much consolation to any victims

[Kizzy]

Actually, to be fair 'pedophile' is the wrong word anyway. She was pubescent not prepubescent.

But: in terms of mitigating his guilt, it would have been acceptable to say that the girl looked, acted and claimed to be older than 13. That woulld have mitigated his guilt without judging her. As it stands she was judged to be 'predatory'.

She was not on trial, he was. But she was still judged. That is wrong. It is far too common, sadly, that young women and girls, especially, are routinely held accountable for their victimhood.

We are assuming the prosecutor had good reason for using that word. But how do we know that? When it is, as I say, all too common for girls to be held accountable for the actions of men.

To say she is predatory is to paint the man as her victim. He was not some innocent, naive, sexually inexperienced young man. He was a middle aged man with a computer full of images of child pornography and bestiality. He also made pornographic images. I do not beleve that the prosecutor and judge used that word because of the evidence. I believe that two older men were willing to accept that a young girl bears more responsibility for sexual activity than another middle aged man.

We in our society treat women's sexuality as essentially seductive and men's sexuality as essentially reactive to that seduction. Time and again in rape trials, the fact that a woman was wearing revealing clothes is held up as evidence against her in mitigation of her rapist's guilt. The implication being that the man simply misread the signals and couldn't help himself. That he was reacting with understandable desire to an object of desire and seduction. Time and again, girls and women are assumed by the authorities to be lying about consent. despite the rarity of false rape claims and prevalence of rape, the conviction rates for that crime remain terribly low compared to other violent crime.

The reason the police set up specialist units was precisely because of this paradigm. And even then those specialist units have been caught advising, and even bullying female victims to withdraw their accusations. The reason the CPS now insists on specialist lawyers for cases of this nature involving children is because they require specialist knowledge of crimes of this nature. Too many cases were falling through the system because children were not believed , and because predatory sexual offenders specifically target very vulnerable children. Kids in childrens homes, for example, who having been abused are then disbelieved or treated as criminals themselves.

I think that this prosecutor was operating on an outdated model of child sexuality and female culpability. It would sit very comfortably in the 1980s or even 1990s, when high court judges would make statements about girls 'asking for it' because they wore a short skirt.

Two really excellent points that tie in with the reason I joined the debate, there is something very old fashioned and blinkered about these attitudes that appear not to have grasped the concept that child grooming is prevalent in the UK despite years of evidence that it is now of epidemic proportions.
It is shocking that there are these professionals that are conciliatory towards these practices and due to their archaic standpoint it is important they don't oversee these cases.

[Ammi]

..wasn't the prosecutor banned from similar cases while being investigated for the case..?..

..for me there isn't any circumstances where a 13yr old should be held to have any responsibility in a case like this because she's a minor, whereas he is a paedophile who is three times her age and completely responsible for his actions...she may have been sexually active, which is also wrong for a minor but that's another debate...her actions whatever they were, don't in any way take his guilt away and should not have an effect on his sentencing...I find describing a child as a sexual predator completely sickening...


..anyway, I'm going to opt out of this thread now because I have nothing more to add....

[DanaC]

I think it says a lot about the judges and the prosecutors view of 13 year old girls who are sexually experienced and sexually predatory.


Ah yes the age old story of middle aged men seduced and entrapped by dangerous young Lolitas.

By describing the girl as predatory, she is recast as perpetrator and by default he is recast as victim: if she is predator, then he is prey. His sentence reflects this recasting.

How exactly, does a 13 year old girl 'prey' upon a middle aged man? How was she able to seduce him into allowing her to perform a sex act on him? The only way that works is if her charms were 'irresistable'. However sexually experienced or aggressive, however manipulative she might have been (not saying she was, just taking the description at face value) his defence rests solely on an assumption that he was unable to say no. That he was unable to resist, even whilst he believed that she was a young girl of 14 or 15. It rests on assumptions of male powerlessness in the face of desire and female voraciousness as a danger to men.

We are back in the land of the 'self-guiding penis':

http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2013/may/28/nick-ross-platell-rape-men

The conclusion to the above article is excellent:

It makes a lot more sense though if, like Ross, Wolf, Platell, and a thousand other hacks, you believe the myth of the self-guiding penis. It allows offenders to abdicate responsibility for their actions, and transfer it to seductive women; it leads people to assume that rape is a crime of passion rather than a cold, premeditated act of psychological manipulation and physical oppression; it reinforces the victim-playing notion among misogynists that female sexuality is a dangerous weapon; and it reduces men to the role of a barely sentient bag of hormones clinging desperately to the back of a rampaging penis.

The myth is as offensive to men as it's dangerous for women. Perhaps the worst part of it is the subliminal message repeated across the media each and every day of the week: whether it's porn driving men crazy or short skirts inviting rape, female sexuality is dangerous, and it must be controlled to protect men. How bizarre to be confronted with the world the way it is, and come to that conclusion.

[Ammi]

It makes a lot more sense though if, like Ross, Wolf, Platell, and a thousand other hacks, you believe the myth of the self-guiding penis. It allows offenders to abdicate responsibility for their actions, and transfer it to seductive women; it leads people to assume that rape is a crime of passion rather than a cold, premeditated act of psychological manipulation and physical oppression; it reinforces the victim-playing notion among misogynists that female sexuality is a dangerous weapon; and it reduces men to the role of a barely sentient bag of hormones clinging desperately to the back of a rampaging penis.

The myth is as offensive to men as it's dangerous for women. Perhaps the worst part of it is the subliminal message repeated across the media each and every day of the week: whether it's porn driving men crazy or short skirts inviting rape, female sexuality is dangerous, and it must be controlled to protect men. How bizarre to be confronted with the world the way it is, and come to that conclusion


..the thing about this case though is wasn't a woman, it was a child...and I don't believe a child should ever be perceived or described as a seductress...

[DanaC]

Sexually developed female adolescents have always been perceived as sexually dangerous.


Think about the term 'jailbait'. What is that actually saying? It's saying that men are drawn in and trapped, and that young girls are sexually voracious and dangerous.


The article I mentioned was in relation to something different. I consider the notion of a 'self directed penis' and male helplessness in the face of, and vulnerability to, young girl's sexuality to be part of a wider cultural context.

[Ammi]

..I think the CPS have already admitted that the prosecutor acted inappropriately by placing any responsibility on the victim..she's a child, he's an adult and the law should be black and white about that..I hope something is learned from this case...

[Kizzy]

It will, it will be known that however much we feel we have progressed its 2 steps forward and 3 back......

[lime]

Excellent post's Dana.

[DanaC]

Thanks:)

Meant to pick up on this earlier, but got distracted by the posts that followed:

''you cannot wave an uncorked bottle in front of an alcoholic and then be outraged when they take a drink''.

This is probably the single most disgusting thing I have ever read on this forum and makes a mockery women everywhere who protest against the premise that the way women dress and act in some way justifies the abuse they suffer...
What makes it all the more disgusting is that it was said in the defence of a man who assaulted a child and not a woman.
There is no grey area in law it is black and white there should be no 'extenuating circumstances' that excused this man from his actions, sex with a 13yr old is illegal consensual or not for a reason.

http://slutmeansspeakup.org.uk/

''The protest movement was sparked by a Canadian policeman who advised students to "avoid dressing like sluts" to avoid being victimised.

Since then, thousands of people worldwide have taken to the streets to highlight a culture in which they say the victim, rather than the abuser, is blamed''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13739876

Excellent post. Totally agree. And thanks for the links!


I think this was a really interesting debate. Definite food for thought.

[Livia]

Ah yes the age old story of middle aged men seduced and entrapped by dangerous young Lolitas.

By describing the girl as predatory, she is recast as perpetrator and by default he is recast as victim: if she is predator, then he is prey. His sentence reflects this recasting.

How exactly, does a 13 year old girl 'prey' upon a middle aged man? How was she able to seduce him into allowing her to perform a sex act on him? The only way that works is if her charms were 'irresistable'. However sexually experienced or aggressive, however manipulative she might have been (not saying she was, just taking the description at face value) his defence rests solely on an assumption that he was unable to say no. That he was unable to resist, even whilst he believed that she was a young girl of 14 or 15. It rests on assumptions of male powerlessness in the face of desire and female voraciousness as a danger to men.

We are back in the land of the 'self-guiding penis':

http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2013/may/28/nick-ross-platell-rape-men

The conclusion to the above article is excellent:


He never said she was a "predator". He said she was "sexually experienced and predatory". There is a world of a difference.

Nowhere in this thread have I defended the man in question. In fact, I have said several times that believe he should have been jailed. But the hoohar surrounding this case is because the barrister called the girl "predatory". Which, judging by her behaviour, is a perfectly accurate description.

My main point, which hasn't been addressed by those who feel so strongly about the barristers words, is, where are the girls' parents in all of this? Why aren't people outraged that a 13 year old child is sexually exprerienced and going back to the house of a grown man for sex? The children's charities who are so very upset by the barristers quite accurate description should maybe turn their attentions to the neglect of the girl's parents.

His defence did not rest solely "on an assumption that he was unable to say no", you're making an assumption on your own interpretation of the barristers words, because you have not read the full transcript and I assume you weren't at the trial. Furthermore, we have not read the whole summing up, we've had bits picked out for us by the press and that's what this whole thread rests on.

[Z]

I agree, Livia.

[Kizzy]

I don't.... I believe this child was groomed, and to place the blame at her parents feet is sickening.
Whatever the child thought or felt is irrelevant as it is the law that they are not mentally mature to make rational desisions at this age which is the whole reason for minimum age for minors:..

Nobody has the transcript for the trial and all we have is our personal opinion in reality and we base our reaction to this hoohar on that.
However if the CPS have chosen to investigate then that suggests some wrong doing in his professional capacity as a judge.

[Z]

I don't.... I believe this child was groomed, and to place the blame at her parents feet is sickening.
Whatever the child thought or felt is irrelevant as it is the law that they are not mentally mature to make rational desisions at this age which is the whole reason for minimum age for minors:..

Nobody has the transcript for the trial and all we have is our personal opinion in reality and we base our reaction to this hoohar on that.
However if the CPS have chosen to investigate then that suggests some wrong doing in his professional capacity as a judge.

Why is it sickening? The court ruling was that this girl went there willingly, so I think it's more than fair to question the involvement or lack of involvement of parents or role models in this girl's life. 13 year old girls shouldn't be willingly going back to 41 year old mens' houses, nor should they be sexually experienced.

Again, that's what the law says, but are you brain dead until you are a legal adult? No. You have thoughts, feelings and compulsions just like adults do - except that when you're a teenager, your hormones are messing with all of those functions more than they do when you are an adult so you are more likely to do irrational things. The girl needs help, whoever she is and whatever may have happened - because at the end of the day, she had sex with an older man and a crime has been committed. In my reading of the article, it came across as the CPS investigating the barrister because of the outrage at his comments and in reality I don't think they are going to do anything to him... could be wrong, I don't know any more about the trial than anyone else, as you said Kizzy.

[Livia]

I don't.... I believe this child was groomed, and to place the blame at her parents feet is sickening.
Whatever the child thought or felt is irrelevant as it is the law that they are not mentally mature to make rational desisions at this age which is the whole reason for minimum age for minors:..

Nobody has the transcript for the trial and all we have is our personal opinion in reality and we base our reaction to this hoohar on that.
However if the CPS have chosen to investigate then that suggests some wrong doing in his professional capacity as a judge.


You only believe the child was groomed. I haven't seen anything that would support that, but you're entitled to make additions to the story if you wish.

No, the girl is not responsible. But to absolve the parents of responsibility is just laughable. She is below the age of majority so her parents/guardians are responsible. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would think that a parent being responsible for their own child would be "sickening".

It is not the CPS that's looking into it, it's the Attorney General's Office. And they have not "chosen" to look into it, they would look into any case where someone has complained; in this case, a children's charity. To restate what I said, maybe the charity would be better off paying more attention to bad parenting that picking up a legal professional in a case of semantics.

[Z]

Well there you go. I've kind of lost interest in this case (that sounds bad, I don't know how else to phrase it) because there's not much else to be discussed unless we are given more information. I think his comments are being investigated because, as Livia says, it's procedure to do so whenever someone has complained about conduct but I doubt anything will come of it.

[Kizzy]

Why is it sickening? The court ruling was that this girl went there willingly, so I think it's more than fair to question the involvement or lack of involvement of parents or role models in this girl's life. 13 year old girls shouldn't be willingly going back to 41 year old mens' houses, nor should they be sexually experienced.

Again, that's what the law says, but are you brain dead until you are a legal adult? No. You have thoughts, feelings and compulsions just like adults do - except that when you're a teenager, your hormones are messing with all of those functions more than they do when you are an adult so you are more likely to do irrational things. The girl needs help, whoever she is and whatever may have happened - because at the end of the day, she had sex with an older man and a crime has been committed. In my reading of the article, it came across as the CPS investigating the barrister because of the outrage at his comments and in reality I don't think they are going to do anything to him... could be wrong, I don't know any more about the trial than anyone else, as you said Kizzy.

Yes zee sickening, during the grooming trials in Oxford where it was found girls were given money, presents and phones to maintain a 'nice' image of their abusers?
I see no difference here... The girl was actively encouraged to participate in sexual acts that this adult knew were illegal.

[Kizzy]

You only believe the child was groomed. I haven't seen anything that would support that, but you're entitled to make additions to the story if you wish.

No, the girl is not responsible. But to absolve the parents of responsibility is just laughable. She is below the age of majority so her parents/guardians are responsible. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would think that a parent being responsible for their own child would be "sickening".

It is not the CPS that's looking into it, it's the Attorney General's Office. And they have not "chosen" to look into it, they would look into any case where someone has complained; in this case, a children's charity. To restate what I said, maybe the charity would be better off paying more attention to bad parenting that picking up a legal professional in a case of semantics.

That is the term given to men who encourage sex from minors so it's apt.
Like the child the parents have done bo wrong here as far as we are aware so to attempt to shift the blame from the abuser to them is wrong.
There is a link confirming the view of the CPS.

[Livia]

That is the term given to men who encourage sex from minors so it's apt.
Like the child the parents have done bo wrong here as far as we are aware so to attempt to shift the blame from the abuser to them is wrong.
There is a link confirming the view of the CPS.

If the word to which you refer is "groomed", then I would have to say that the word appears nowhere in the report so it's not apt, it's an assumption.

The parents are legally responsible for their "sexually experienced" 13 year old daughter. That's all that needs to be said.

The CPS have commented on the language used by its prosecutor. You said in your previous post that the CPS "had chosen to investigate", which was wrong.

[Kizzy]

I didn't suggest it was did I?
It was a comparison to similar cases not an assumption.
Neither did I say the child was not the parents responsibility, can you try not to misquote me so often please?
And her parents were not the ones on trial here, I feel this needs to be said..again.
Can't do much as on my phone but will help find you some info when I can.

[AnnieK]

I don't.... I believe this child was groomed, and to place the blame at her parents feet is sickening.
Whatever the child thought or felt is irrelevant as it is the law that they are not mentally mature to make rational desisions at this age which is the whole reason for minimum age for minors:..

Nobody has the transcript for the trial and all we have is our personal opinion in reality and we base our reaction to this hoohar on that.
However if the CPS have chosen to investigate then that suggests some wrong doing in his professional capacity as a judge.

I didn't suggest it was did I?
It was a comparison to similar cases not an assumption.
Neither did I say the child was not the parents responsibility, can you try not to misquote me so often please?
And her parents were not the ones on trial here, I feel this needs to be said..again.
Can't do much as on my phone but will help find you some info when I can.

To be fair Kizzy, you did say you believe she had been groomed so it is based on assumption.

[Kizzy]

To be fair Kizzy, you did say you believe she had been groomed so it is based on assumption.
Annie I don't mean to be rude here but can you comment on the issue and not focus on the way my posts are constructed?

I explained that I was making a comparison between cases where children were groomed and how these cases compared.
We could go around and around about many assumptions made in this thread about the character of the child and the perceived failing of the parents... but let's not.

[DanaC]

But the hoohar surrounding this case is because the barrister called the girl "predatory". Which, judging by her behaviour, is a perfectly accurate description.




His defence did not rest solely "on an assumption that he was unable to say no", you're making an assumption on your own interpretation of the barristers words, because you have not read the full transcript and I assume you weren't at the trial.

Neither of us have access to full transcripts.Therefore both of us are drawing on our own interpretation of the words.

When sentencing Wilson to eight months' imprisonment suspended, it seems that the judge, HHJ Peters QC, referred to the 13-year-old female victim as 'predatory.' Unfortunately, this is a case where sentencing remarks are not available, and so only the media reports are available. The barrister representing the Crown Prosecution Service, Robert Colover, is reported to have said to the court: "The girl is predatory in all her actions and she is sexually experienced."

http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/blog-post/2287807/predator-or-prey-the-judge-the-barrister-a-13yearold-victim-and-a-media-furore



Regardless: that girl was not in court to be judged; the defendant was. Yet in the summing up she has been judged and branded as predatory and essentially made partially responsible for something in which she can bear no such responsibility and on the basis of that description of her action as predatory, the 41 year old man who allowed or encouraged a girl who looked two years under the age of consent to return with him to his home, strip and engage in sexual activity walked away with a suspended sentence:

Passing sentence, Judge Nigel Peters then said he had taken into account that the girl looked and behaved "a little bit older" than she was.

"The girl was predatory and was egging you on. That is no defence when dealing with children but I am prepared to impose a suspension," he said.

http://www.onlinepublishingcompany.info/content/read_more/complexInfobox/site_news/infobox/elements/template/default/active_id/5752

[Samuel.]

Ahhh. One of these threads where I have zero interest in going into a debate about, my beliefs are my beliefs, but I completely agree with Niamh.

[Z]

I disagree with your points Dana but as always they make perfect sense and I understand where you are coming from totally. I just can't accept this at face value because when cases go to court, the judge, jury and legal teams never judge only the perpetrator of the crime. They take into account all of the factors into the case - there are at least two sides to every case and there are usually witnesses brought in on both sides. While it might be viewed as wrong to judge an underage girl for her actions because she has been sexually assaulted (in the legal sense of the term) - we don't know the reality; the people working on the case know more than we do and I have to assume that the barrister who made those comments about her being sexually experienced and predatory knew what he was talking about. Those are very strong accusations to make and he would have known it would be deemed controversial to say them. The girl is not a mannequin - she has thoughts, feelings and compulsions just like anyone over the age of consent, so I simply can't accept the logic that it doesn't matter what she said or did.

As you posted above, the judge took into account the actions of the girl (because, again, this was not a cut and dry case of a man kidnapping a girl and having his way with her) when he sentenced the man; and while I think we can all agree that the sentence is far too lenient - to me, there is a fundamental difference between a kidnap and rape; and a girl coming onto a man and "egging him on" to let her perform sex acts on him. People have talked about the Lolita stereotype - but that's exactly what this sounds like. A young girl in control of her sexuality at a young age (or who thinks she is in control) being sexual with a much older man. This girl does not sound like the kind of 13 year old girl who still plays with her Barbie dolls and is in bed by 9pm every night. I think it is completely justified to question the role of her parents/guardians in this situation. Why is she behaving in this way? How did she meet this man? Was he known to her or was he a stranger?

[Ammi]

..I do think a large part of the responsibility lies with the parents..I also know where parenting is involved and through my job of having knowledge of many varied and complicated family situations, it's not necessarily 'black and white' but doesn't meant that parents don't try the best they are able to...anyway, I don't know the details of her family life or indeed any court details other than what's been reported by the media, so there isn't really much else to comment on until more details are known...other than to say that if her parents let her down in their parenting then then in my opinion the courts compounded that by also letting her down in the wording of the judge and the sentencing...

[Ammi]

..sorry, I do have one last thing to say lol...if she was a victim of 'bad parenting' then the barrister/judge have made her a victim again by labelling her and while she may be very sexually aware, at 13yrs old she isn't emotionally mature and a 13yr old is highly susceptible to believing they are what people say they are, which will make it more difficult for her to move forward in her adult life with that label she believes herself to be....

..no two situations are ever identical but interestingly we've had a debate in the BB section about 'maneater' Hazel and Daley who was in a relationship..ultimately, no matter how sexual Hazel is, the responsibility was on Daley to resist that because it was wrong in his situation...it was wrong and illegal for a 41yr old man to succumb to the 'advances' of a 13yr old child, no matter how she behaved and the courts could have reflected that in the sentencing but they chose to label her instead...I find that extremely saddening...

[Livia]

Neither of us have access to full transcripts.Therefore both of us are drawing on our own interpretation of the words.

http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/blog-post/2287807/predator-or-prey-the-judge-the-barrister-a-13yearold-victim-and-a-media-furore

Regardless: that girl was not in court to be judged; the defendant was. Yet in the summing up she has been judged and branded as predatory and essentially made partially responsible for something in which she can bear no such responsibility and on the basis of that description of her action as predatory, the 41 year old man who allowed or encouraged a girl who looked two years under the age of consent to return with him to his home, strip and engage in sexual activity walked away with a suspended sentence:

http://www.onlinepublishingcompany.info/content/read_more/complexInfobox/site_news/infobox/elements/template/default/active_id/5752

I subscribe to Legal Week, but thanks for Googling the link anyway.

Do I have to say - again - that I believe the man should have been jailed? I think I've made that perfectly clear. The case is being appealed, if an error is found to have occured then his sentence will be adjusted.

We're going to go around and around on this one aren't we. So instead of saying the same thing over and over, I'll sum up: I believe the man was guilty and should have been jailed, but I also think some attention needs to be paid to the fact that this thirteen year old child was, and probably is, predatory. If saying that is upsetting to some, well... that's just the way it is. I think sometimes stuff like this needs to be said otherwise people seem to be turning a blind eye to the sexualisation of children in this country, and to the total inertia of some parents.

[Ninastar]

I disagree with your points Dana but as always they make perfect sense and I understand where you are coming from totally. I just can't accept this at face value because when cases go to court, the judge, jury and legal teams never judge only the perpetrator of the crime. They take into account all of the factors into the case - there are at least two sides to every case and there are usually witnesses brought in on both sides. While it might be viewed as wrong to judge an underage girl for her actions because she has been sexually assaulted (in the legal sense of the term) - we don't know the reality; the people working on the case know more than we do and I have to assume that the barrister who made those comments about her being sexually experienced and predatory knew what he was talking about. Those are very strong accusations to make and he would have known it would be deemed controversial to say them. The girl is not a mannequin - she has thoughts, feelings and compulsions just like anyone over the age of consent, so I simply can't accept the logic that it doesn't matter what she said or did.

As you posted above, the judge took into account the actions of the girl (because, again, this was not a cut and dry case of a man kidnapping a girl and having his way with her) when he sentenced the man; and while I think we can all agree that the sentence is far too lenient - to me, there is a fundamental difference between a kidnap and rape; and a girl coming onto a man and "egging him on" to let her perform sex acts on him. People have talked about the Lolita stereotype - but that's exactly what this sounds like. A young girl in control of her sexuality at a young age (or who thinks she is in control) being sexual with a much older man. This girl does not sound like the kind of 13 year old girl who still plays with her Barbie dolls and is in bed by 9pm every night. I think it is completely justified to question the role of her parents/guardians in this situation. Why is she behaving in this way? How did she meet this man? Was he known to her or was he a stranger?

Very very well said

[Livia]

Annie I don't mean to be rude here but can you comment on the issue and not focus on the way my posts are constructed?

I explained that I was making a comparison between cases where children were groomed and how these cases compared.
We could go around and around about many assumptions made in this thread about the character of the child and the perceived failing of the parents... but let's not.


Annie was commenting on the issue. She was agreeing with me that your use of the word 'grooming' was at worst spurious and at best an assumption. The word appears nowhere in the article on page 1, and neither have I seen it used anywhere in connection with this case, apart from in your post.

And no, let's not go round and round because you've already got way off the point. I've said all I have to say anyway, so anything further you want to add, I will refer you to my previous posts.

[Livia]

I disagree with your points Dana but as always they make perfect sense and I understand where you are coming from totally. I just can't accept this at face value because when cases go to court, the judge, jury and legal teams never judge only the perpetrator of the crime. They take into account all of the factors into the case - there are at least two sides to every case and there are usually witnesses brought in on both sides. While it might be viewed as wrong to judge an underage girl for her actions because she has been sexually assaulted (in the legal sense of the term) - we don't know the reality; the people working on the case know more than we do and I have to assume that the barrister who made those comments about her being sexually experienced and predatory knew what he was talking about. Those are very strong accusations to make and he would have known it would be deemed controversial to say them. The girl is not a mannequin - she has thoughts, feelings and compulsions just like anyone over the age of consent, so I simply can't accept the logic that it doesn't matter what she said or did.

As you posted above, the judge took into account the actions of the girl (because, again, this was not a cut and dry case of a man kidnapping a girl and having his way with her) when he sentenced the man; and while I think we can all agree that the sentence is far too lenient - to me, there is a fundamental difference between a kidnap and rape; and a girl coming onto a man and "egging him on" to let her perform sex acts on him. People have talked about the Lolita stereotype - but that's exactly what this sounds like. A young girl in control of her sexuality at a young age (or who thinks she is in control) being sexual with a much older man. This girl does not sound like the kind of 13 year old girl who still plays with her Barbie dolls and is in bed by 9pm every night. I think it is completely justified to question the role of her parents/guardians in this situation. Why is she behaving in this way? How did she meet this man? Was he known to her or was he a stranger?

Great post, Zee.

[Kizzy]

Annie was commenting on the issue. She was agreeing with me that your use of the word 'grooming' was at worst spurious and at best an assumption. The word appears nowhere in the article on page 1, and neither have I seen it used anywhere in connection with this case, apart from in your post.

And no, let's not go round and round because you've already got way off the point. I've said all I have to say anyway, so anything further you want to add, I will refer you to my previous posts.

Annie was agreeing with you yes, unfortunately I disagree with your interpretation of my post.
I have explained my reasoning for using the word grooming and that stands.
Never once did I suggest it was in any text relating to the case you are again misquoting me livia.
For the last time I used the cases of the grooming in Oxford as a comparison only.

To bring it back to the point let's see what the opinion of the PM is...

''David Cameron had condemned a prosecution barrister and had urged the courts to ‘stand up for victims’ after Neil Wilson, 41, escaped jail despite luring the girl to his home, where she performed a sex act on him.

'It isn’t appropriate. We need a criminal justice system that stands up properly for victims. The victims should always be at the centre of our thinking.


‘The CPS themselves have said that this isn’t appropriate, the Attorney General is going to look into the case and we need a system that properly stands up for victims.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2389851/Paedophile-Neil-Wilson-abused-girl-13-called-predator-STILL-avoids-jail.html

[Nedusa]

No come on people I think we need to be clear here, although in the eyes of the law she is innocent and plays no part in this situation and needs to be protected by people who should know better, the reality however unpalatable is that she was not blameless and probably had had sex with numerous partners regardless of her age.

The main point of debate is that the man in question regardless of her behaviour should not have indulged her and by doing so he broke the law and must suffer the consequences...!!!

[Z]

The Prime Minister isn't likely to go against the outrage of the public though is he? I doubt much will come of this investigation if I'm being honest, I don't think the legal profession will be overly concerned by this storm in a teacup.

Perfect summary though really Nedusa :worship:

[Kizzy]

So you think the PM is just placating the public and they're not his true feeling on this subject?
The fact that it has affected the public and the CPS shows that it's far from a storm in a teacup. I would hope it changes attitudes of those working on these cases.
Suppositions like this are unhelpful to victims.
''probably had had sex with numerous partners regardless of her age.''

[Z]

So you think the PM is just placating the public and they're not his true feeling on this subject?
The fact that it has affected the public and the CPS shows that it's far from a storm in a teacup. I would hope it changes attitudes of those working on these cases.
Suppositions like this are unhelpful to victims.
''probably had had sex with numerous partners regardless of her age.''

Yes, he's the Prime Minister :laugh: he's not going to alienate people by taking a controversial view point in something like this.

[DanaC]

Even if her behaviour was 'predatory' (which I don't accept - it mischaracterises the power differential between a 13 year old girl and a 41 year old man) using it in this context, at this point in the trial was wrong in my opinion. It was used as mitigation of the man's guilt and it effectively cast judgement on the girl. She was not on trial. It was entirely inappropriate to brand her in this way.

We are clearly not going to agree on this. It will be interesting to see what comes of the review into the matter.

[Livia]

Even if her behaviour was 'predatory' (which I don't accept - it mischaracterises the power differential between a 13 year old girl and a 41 year old man) using it in this context, at this point in the trial was wrong in my opinion. It was used as mitigation of the man's guilt and it effectively cast judgement on the girl. She was not on trial. It was entirely inappropriate to brand her in this way.

We are clearly not going to agree on this. It will be interesting to see what comes of the review into the matter.

Agreed. Even though you an I clearly don't agree, it's been interesting, DanaC.

[Kizzy]

Yes, he's the Prime Minister :laugh: he's not going to alienate people by taking a controversial view point in something like this.

It is controversial with good reason, the controversiality surrounding the judges comments is what sparked the whole debate here.
I look forward to hearing what outcomes there are following this.