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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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 ??

Great posts Dana

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 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?

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.

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

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.

..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....

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/t...atell-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


..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...

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.

..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...

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

Excellent post's Dana.

Thanks:)

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

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


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