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.

I agree, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/...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.i...active_id/5752

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.

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?

..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...

..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...

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.

Very very well said

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.

Great post, Zee.

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/arti...oids-jail.html

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...!!!

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:

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.''