[Z]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..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]

Originally Posted by Zee

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]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..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.]

Originally Posted by Zee

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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Zee

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.