[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.

[ChristmasNeeve]

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.